alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**RC** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0 400 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KRISTIN VINECKE ,

Defendant and Appellant. **GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including May 16 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief .

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 27 2020

03/27/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0400
Darleen LEVY v. Jack E. TRUITT and The Truitt Law Firm, LLC

NO. 2019-CC-0293

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 2034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00520]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 
a teleconference of the National Science Board/National Science 
Foundation Commission on Merit Review (MRX) for the transaction of 
National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: The MRX meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 13, 
2025, from 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Eastern.

PLACE: This meeting will be via videoconference through the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda is: Commission Chair's remarks 
about the agenda; Discussion of revised Commission Report to the Board; 
and Commission Chair's closing remarks.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, [email protected], 703/292-7000. Meeting information and 
updates may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2025-00520 Filed 1-7-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
H.S. and B.S. v. T.B. and S.B.

2160336

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 193 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 193

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance 
   on payment under the Medicare program for certain items involving 
                        artificial intelligence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance 
   on payment under the Medicare program for certain items involving 
                        artificial intelligence.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Maintaining Innovation and Safe 
Technologies Act''.

SEC. 2. GUIDANCE ON MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN ITEMS INVOLVING 
              ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

    Not later than January 1, 2027, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall use existing communications mechanisms to issue guidance 
on requirements for payment under part B of title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) for remote monitoring devices, 
such as continuous glucose monitors, that--
            (1) use an artificial intelligence component (such as a 
        continuous adjustment component); and
            (2) transmit information to a health care provider for 
        purposes of management and treatment of an individual.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of OccuLogix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G. Dumencu,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and





(2)
            The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and result of operations of the
Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








OCCULOGIX,
      INC.Date
      : July 21 ,  2008
            By:
            /s/
      William G. Dumencu
WIREGRASS CONSTRUCTION CO. v. OZARK SAFETY SERVICES, LLC, and Parker Grassing, Inc.

1150828

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
A.D.P. v. K.M.D.

2160609

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 9, 2017 Reh. denied December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 4(c)  


 
 

CERTIFICATE    
    



	CERTIFICATE NUMBER	 	EFFECTIVE DATE
	

OWNER 1	
 	

BIRTH DATE OF OWNER 1
	

OWNER 2	
 	

BIRTH DATE OF OWNER 2
	

ANNUITANT	
 	

BIRTH DATE OF ANNUITANT
	

BENEFICIARY	
 	

ANNUITY COMMENCEMENT DATE





CONTRACT HOLDER:  


CLASS OF ELIGIBLE OWNERS:  


JURISDICTION: This Contract is governed by the laws of the State of Alabama. 


INITIAL PURCHASE PAYMENT: {100,000.00} 


MILES AWARDED PER DOLLAR OF INITIAL PURCHASE PAYMENT: {1} 



	CREDIT PERCENTAGES:
	 	Total Purchase Payments
	 	Credit Percentage

	 	 	Less than $50,000	 	0.0%
	 	 	$50,000 and over	 	1.0%





CONTRACT MAINTENANCE FEE: {$40}

The contract maintenance fee is deducted prior to the Annuity Commencement Date on each Contract Anniversary, and on any day that the Contract is surrendered other than the Contract Anniversary. The
contract maintenance fee will be deducted from the Allocation Options in the same proportion as their values are to the Contract Value. The contract maintenance fee will be waived by the Company in
the event the Contract Value or the aggregate Purchase Payments reduced by surrenders equals or exceeds $50,000 on the date the contract maintenance fee is to be deducted. 



MORTALITY AND EXPENSE RISK CHARGE: {1.35%} per annum. 


ADMINISTRATION CHARGE: {0.15%} per annum. 


TRANSFER FEE: {$25} per transfer in excess of 12 in any Contract Year. 


1





 
SURRENDER CHARGE  



	Number of Full Years Elapsed Between

the Effective Date and the Surrender Date
	 	Surrender Charge Percentage

	0   	 	8%
	1   	 	8%
	2   	 	7%
	3   	 	7%
	4   	 	6%
	5   	 	6%
	6   	 	5%
	7+	 	0%




ALLOCATION OPTIONS AVAILABLE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE  



	{Fidelity}	 	{OppenheimerFunds}
	 	 	{VIP Index 500 SC2}	 	 	 	{Global Securities SS}
	 	 	{VIP Growth SC2}	 	 	 	{Aggressive Growth SS}
	 	 	{VIP Contrafund SC2}	 	 	 	{Capital Appreciation SS}
	 	 	 	 	 	 	{Main Street SS}
	{Goldman Sachs/PIC}	 	 	 	{Strategic Bond SS}
	 	 	{International Equity}	 	 	 	{High Income SS}
	 	 	{Small Cap Value}	 	 	 	{Money}
	 	 	{Capital Growth}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{CORE U.S. Equity}	 	{Van Kampen}
	 	 	{Growth and Income}	 	 	 	{Aggressive Growth II}
	 	 	{Global Income}	 	 	 	{Emerging Growth II}
	 	 	 	 	 	 	{Enterprise II}
	{Lord Abbett}	 	 	 	{Comstock II}
	 	 	{Growth Opportunities}	 	 	 	{Growth and Income II}
	 	 	{Mid-Cap Value}	 	 	 	{Government II}
	 	 	{Growth and Income}	 	 	 	{UIF Equity and Income II}
	 	 	{Americas Value}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Bond-Debenture}	 	 	 	 
	

{Massachusetts Financial Services (MFS)}	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	{New Discovery SS}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Emerging Growth SS}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Investors Growth Stock SS}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Research SS}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Utilities SS}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Investors Trust SS}	 	 	 	 
	 	 	{Total Return SS}	 	 	 	 




2









QuickLinks


CERTIFICATE
# C_2019383EN.01000701.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH v Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

(Case C-299/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial policy - Approximation of laws - Directive 98/34/EC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Article 1(11) - Concept of ‘technical regulation’)

(2019/C 383/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VG Media Gesellschaft zur Verwertung der Urheber- und Leistungsschutzrechte von Medienunternehmen mbH

Defendant: Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998), must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits only commercial operators of search engines and commercial service providers that similarly publish content from making newspapers or magazines or parts thereof (excluding individual words and very short text excerpts) available to the public, constitutes a ‘technical regulation’ within the meaning of that provision, the draft of which is subject to prior notification to the Commission pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
Mario WOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Terri COX

NO. 2018-KP-1526

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., recused.
Eric GARCIA, DOC #R65068, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from the University of Colorado Boulder (WB24-69—12/30/24) for permission to use data from the Board's 2005-2010 unmasked Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB24-69.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Jeffrey Herzig,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2025-00514 Filed 1-10-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID E. JONES d/b/a )

CROOKED STIRRUPS.COM )

)

V. ) 3-04-CV-2438-G

)

RICHARD TRENT CARRILLO )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the District Court’s Order and Default Judgment filed on December 28, 2004,

which in pertinent part directed the Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing to determine the amount

of Plaintiff’s damages and claims for interest, cost and attorney’s fees and the order of the

Magistrate Judge filed on September 21, 2005, setting a hearing to receive evidence on Plaintiff’s

claim,

On October 12, 2005, the hearing was conducted at which Plaintiff appeared through counsel

and presented evidence consisting of the declarations of Plaintiff dated August 17, 2005 and October

11, 2005, the declaration of George R. Schultz dated August 17, 2005, with attached exhibits, See

Plaintiff’s Appendix filed on August 17, 2005. Although duly noticed of the hearing, Defendant

Richard Trent Carrillo failed to appear in person or through counsel.

Having considered the evidence presented, the Magistrate Judge finds and recommends that

the District Court enter its final judgment awarding the following monetary damages, interest and

attorney’s fees to Plaintiff David E. Jones:

1. Lost profits ($165,000.00 Trebled -

 (See Order and Default Judgment at page 2) $ 495,000.00

2. Pre-judgment interest at 5% per annum 1,062.33

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02438-G Document 24 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 132
2

3. Post-judgment interest accrued since

 December 28, 2004 10,419.89

4. Attorney’s fees and costs 27,111.50

Total $533,593.72

SIGNED this 17th day of October, 2005.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you

must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)

(en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge

of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain

error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02438-G Document 24 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 133
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 152 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 152

       Designating April 2023 as ``National Native Plant Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2023

    Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Braun) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                              May 3, 2023

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating April 2023 as ``National Native Plant Month''.

Whereas native plants are indigenous species that have evolved and occur 
        naturally in a particular region, ecosystem, and habitat;
Whereas there are more than 17,000 native plant species in the United States, 
        which include trees, shrubs, vines, grasses, and wildflowers;
Whereas native plants help prevent flooding, drought, and erosion and can help 
        restore damaged ecosystems;
Whereas native plants provide shelter as well as nectar, pollen, and seeds that 
        serve as food for native butterflies, insects, birds, and other wildlife 
        in ways that non-native plants cannot;
Whereas more than 200 of the native plant species in the United States are 
        estimated to have been lost since the early 19th century;
Whereas habitat loss and degradation, extreme weather events, and invasive 
        species have contributed to the decline of native plants in the United 
        States; and
Whereas native plants are essential components of resilient ecosystems and the 
        natural heritage of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates April 2023 as ``National Native Plant 
        Month''; and
            (2) recognizes the benefits of native plants to the 
        environment and economy of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Steven Duatell RICE

1160754 (CR-15-1480)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Opinion filed October 8, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

___________

No. 11-09-00197-CR

__________

 STEPHANIE LAVON WORD A/K/A STEPHANIE PAYNE, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

 Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16863B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Stephanie Lavon Work a/k/a Stephanie Payne of the offense of theft. The

trial court assessed her punishment at confinement for twenty-three months in a state jail facility.

We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported

by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable

law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant

with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response
2

to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record,

and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise

appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises

appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 66.

Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.). 

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 8, 2009

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 22, 2016

p0119

Order 

Clerk

January 22, 2016

151521

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151521

COA: 324590

Wayne CC: 13-008655-FC

DEJUAN CARUTH HUNTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this appeal is considered, and the appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A1 50 4 . HOW A RD ANDERSON LEE v . RI CHARD T. ALEXANDER.

In m at e Ho ward An d ers o n Lee ap p eal ed d i rect l y t o t h is Co u rt fro m a s u p eri o r

co u rt o rd er d is m i ss in g h i s ci v i l cas e ag ai n s t Ri ch ard T. Al ex an d er, wh o Lee al l eg ed

h ad fai led to p erfo r m cert ai n d u t i es as Cl erk o f G wi n n et t Co u n t y Co u rt s

. Becau s e

L e e is a p ri s o ner, h i s ap p eal i s co n t ro l l ed b y t h e Pri s o n Li t i g at i o n Refo rm A c t o f

1 9 9 6

, OCGA § 4 2 -1 2 -1 et seq

. Un d er OCGA § 4 2 -1 2-8 , an ap p eal o f a ci v i l act i o n

fi led b y a p ri so n er “ s h al l b e as p ro v i d ed in Co d e Sect io n 5-6 -3 5

. ” An d u n d er OCGA

§ 5 -6 -3 5

, t h e part y wi s h in g t o ap p eal m u s t fi l e an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal

t o t h e ap pro p ri at e ap p el l at e co urt

. Becau s e a p ri s o n er h as n o ri g h t of d i r e c t a p p e a l

i n ci v i l cas es

, we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n si d er t hi s d i rect ap p eal fro m t h e s u p e r i o r

co u rt ’ s o rd er. See Jo n es v. To wn s en d

, 2 6 7 G a. 48 9

, 49 0 (4 8 0 SE2 d 2 4 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Th i s

ap p eal i s t h erefo re DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 19, 2017

06/19/2017
Case 3:04-cv-01221-N Document 1 Filed 06/04/04 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1
Case 3:04-cv-01221-N Document 1 Filed 06/04/04 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2
Case 3:04-cv-01221-N Document 1 Filed 06/04/04 Page 3 of 4 PageID 3
Case 3:04-cv-01221-N Document 1 Filed 06/04/04 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4