alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: Shaun ROSIERE, Petitioner

No. 17-1092

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 2, 2017

(Opinion filed: June 2, 2017)

Shaun Rosiere, Pro Se

Mark E. Coyne, Esq., Leah A. Farrell, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, John J. Hoffman, Esq., Office of Attorney General of New Jersey, Division of Law Employment Litigation Section, Trenton, NJ, Matthew T. Smith, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Camden, NJ, for Defendant-Respondent

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, MCKEE and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

Shaun Rosiere seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the District Court to rule on three motions pending in the underlying criminal matter concerning the terms of his supervised release. By order entered April 5, 2017, the District Court denied each motion. In light of the District Court’s action, this mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiffs personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
#### Thomas Earl GLADDEN, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Matt BARBER, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6274

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Thomas Earl Gladden, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Earl Gladden, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gladden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Gladden’s motions for the appointment of counsel and transcripts at Government expense, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Joseph W. BULLARD, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
Exhibit 10.74

 

[Date]

 

To:                             [Executive]

 

Re:                             CIC Agreement Extension

 

Abbott’s Board of Directors recently extended your Change in Control (CIC) agreement. Its term now continues through December 31, 2020. The CIC agreement provides you with financial, health and welfare benefits in the event of a Change in Control.  No action is required on your part to continue participation in the CIC agreement.

 

You are hereby notified that your current Change in Control Agreement, which was set to expire on December 31, 2018, has been extended to December 31, 2020.

 

Please retain a copy of this Notification of Extension with your important records.
Sheldon MINTZBERG, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Carmele MCGEARY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Warren Shannon KEENE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-370

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Arthur N. Eggers, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 906

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Mark W. Haushill, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Argonaut Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CERTIFIED this 12th day of March, 2004.



/s/ Mark W. HaushillMark W. HaushillVice President Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
IN RE: Timothy John HENRY, Jr.

NO. 2018-B-0875

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent pleaded guilty to first offense DWI. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Timothy John Henry, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 35490, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. It is further ordered that the entirety of the suspension shall be deferred, subject to a one-year period of unsupervised probation. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
** **

**EXHIBIT 23.1**

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued ourreports dated May 26, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financialstatements and schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report ofRentrak Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports inthe Registration Statements of Rentrak Corporation on Forms S-8 (FileNos. 33-44865, 333-28565, 333-39021, 333-62523, 333-110781and 333-110782).
| /s/ Grant Thornton LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Portland, Oregon       |   |
| June 9, 2006      |   |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 19, 2020

No. 04-20-00371-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M., ET AL CHILDREN

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-02077

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After this court advised court reporter Elva G. Chapa that the reporter’s record was late, 

she filed a notification of late reporter’s record. She indicated her other duties preclude her from 

working on the record, and she expects to file the record by August 21, 2020.

The reporter’s motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record is GRANTED. 

The reporter’s record is due on August 21, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (limiting an 

extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days). 

The child’s “need for permanence is the paramount consideration for the child’s present 

and future physical and emotional needs.” See Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory 

Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ). This court must render its 

decision “with the least possible delay,” and any further delays in obtaining the reporter’s record 

will hinder this court in its duty. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex. 

2005) (quoting TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(a)). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of August, 2020.
___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
#### Columbus ALLEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEUNG, DDS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15283

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Columbus Allen, Jr., Pro Se

Jerome Varanini, Attorney, Trimble, Sherinian *&*Varanini, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Columbus Allen, Jr., a former pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate dental care during his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Although the district court failed to address explicitly Allen’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) request for additional discovery, the denial of the request was not error because Allen failed to show that the discovery he requested would have precluded summary judgment. *See Getz v. Boeing Co.,*654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a plaintiff must show that the discovery sought would have precluded summary judgment); *Margolis v. Ryan,*140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review).

The district court did hot abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motions for appointment of counsel because Allen failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Cano v. Taylor,*739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Denial of Allen’s request regarding the deposition notice was not an abuse of discretion because Allen failed to show any harm from the failure to disclose the recording method. *See Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court’s discovery rulings “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Contrary to Allen’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike Cheung’s evidence on the ground that it was untimely disclosed.

We reject as meritless Allen’s contentions of denial of equal protection and due process, and bias.

*785Allen’s requests for counsel, filed on July 13, 2015 and set forth in his opening brief, are denied,

AFFIRMED,

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Deshawn GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3400

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Deshawn Green, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel R. Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
James JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Girlis H. SERRATT v. STATE

CR-16-0120

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02792]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

[NARA-2022-029]


Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are announcing an upcoming Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act and the second United States Open Government 
National Action Plan.

DATES: The meeting will be on March 10, 2022, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET). You must register by 11:59 p.m. ET March 8, 2022, to 
attend the meeting. (See registration information below.)
    Location: This meeting will be a virtual meeting. We will send 
access instructions to those who register according to the instructions 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Mitchell, Designated Federal 
Officer for this committee, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e781888e86ca8683918e9488959eca84888a8a8e93938282a789869586c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3a33353d713d382a352f332e25713f33313135282839391c323d2e3d723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at 202-741-5775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda and meeting materials: We will post all meeting materials at 
https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-advisory-committee/2020-2022-term. 
This will be the seventh meeting of the 2020-2022 committee term. The 
purpose of this meeting is to hear updates and consider any draft 
recommendations from the four subcommittees: Classification, 
Legislation, Process, and Technology.
    Procedures: This virtual meeting is open to the public in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). 
You must register in advance (see deadline in Dates section above) 
through Eventbrite at https://foiaac-mtg-mar-9-2022.eventbrite.com if 
you wish to offer oral comments during the public comment period of the 
meeting. You must provide an email address so that we can provide you 
access information. To request additional accommodations (e.g., a 
transcript or closed captioning), email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b7beb8b0fcb0b5a7b8a2bea3a8fcb2bebcbcb8a5a5b4b491bfb0a3b0ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="50363f39317d31342639233f22297d333f3d3d3924243535103e3122317e373f26">[email protected]</span></a> or call 202-741-5775.

Tasha Ford,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-02792 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2.1










FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORPORATE SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC.
AND THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CORPORATE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), made and entered into as of the 30th day of September, 1998, by and between TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC., a Michigan corporation, having an address at 200 East Long Lake Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 (“Company”), and THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership, having an address at 200 East Long Lake Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 (“Manager”) is based upon the following:
RECITALS: 
A.    Company and Manager entered into that certain Corporate Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 30, 1992.
B.    Company and Manager now wish to amend the Agreement to provide for provisions relating to the term of the Agreement and for certain other purposes.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
1.    The definition of “Master Services Agreement” is hereby amended to add the following at the end thereof:
“, as the same may be amended, restated, or supplemented from time to time.”
2.    Section 6.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following at the end thereof:
“Such mutual consent shall be deemed given absent written notice to the contrary from one party to the other party given not less than one (11 year prior to the end of the then-current term. Notwithstanding anything in this Section 6.1 to the contrary, Company shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by written notice to Manager, such termination to be effective thirty (30) Days after the date of receipt of such notice.”
3.    Inasmuch as the Partnership Committee of The Taubman Realty Group Limited Partnership has been eliminated, references in the Agreement to “Partnership Committee” are hereby deleted.













4.    Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms of the Agreement continue unmodified and are hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.




TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC.,
a Michigan corporation


By:    /s/ Lisa A. Payne                    
Lisa A. Payne


Its:    Executive Vice President and 
Chief Financial Officer
THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited Partnership




By:    /s/ Robert S. Taubman                    
Robert S. Taubman


Its:    Authorized Signatory
#### Jerry William MCNEILL, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6489

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Jerry William McNeill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew Regulski, NORTH *169CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerry William McNeill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. §.2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, -a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McNeill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Ronney Earl TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wyatt RUFFIN, Dentist; Mary Mayhue, Dentist Assistant, Defendants-Appellees, and A. David Robinson, Chief Of Correction Operations, Defendant.

No. 17-6787

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

*252Ronney Earl Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronney Earl Turner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Turner v. Ruffin,*No. 1:16-cv-00510-CMH-JFA, 2017 WL 2405371 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*