alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GRETA CRAWFORD, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2619-L

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and §

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND §

SECURITY, §

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Costs, filed August 14, 2006. Plaintiff objects to

Defendants’ Bill of Costs for $499.75 for the taking of her deposition. This matter was referred to

the United States Magistrate Judge for proposed findings and recommendation.

On August 25, 2006, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge (“Report”) were filed. The magistrate judge recommends that the court overrule

the objection, as it is without merit. Plaintiff also filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings

on September 5, 2006.

Having reviewed the pleadings, file and record in this case, the findings and conclusions of

the magistrate judge, and the objections thereto, the court determines that the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct. They are therefore accepted as those of the court.

Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection to Costs and her objections to the magistrate

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02619-L Document 215 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1857
Order - Page 2

judge’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, costs are taxed against Plaintiff in the amount of

$499.75, and she shall pay this amount to Defendants within 30 days of the date of this order.

It is so ordered this 2nd day of November, 2006. 

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02619-L Document 215 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1858
EX PARTE J.S.

(In re: The matter of K.E.S., a minor child)

2170317

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 31, 2018

Dismissed.
Richard A. RODRIGUE v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0602

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would deny.

GENOVESE, J., would deny and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would simply deny this writ outright without the mythical and untenable verbiage, "adequate remedy on appeal."
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAMES BELL McCOY, SR. )

)

V. ) 3-05-cv-2096-P

)

HONORABLE HENRY WADE, JR. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 9 day of March 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02096-P Document 13 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 51
EX PARTE Eric DARBY

1161103 (CR-16-0654)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Ridgewood Energy M
Fund, LLC;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated: April 5, 2007

  /s/  ROBERT E. SWANSON
Name:  Robert E. Swanson

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
       (Principal Executive Officer)
Gerald LEIRER, DOC #S42292, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 2:05-cv-00176-J Document 19 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 166
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 99 

To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 

of the United States for the right to life of each born and preborn 

human person. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. DAINES, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ROUNDS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. WICKER, Mr. 

BRAUN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. SCOTT of 

South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment 

to the Constitution of the United States for the right 

to life of each born and preborn human person. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Life at Conception Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE. 

7 To implement equal protection for the right to life 

8 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 99 IS

1 to the duty and authority of Congress, including Congress’ 

2 power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of 

3 the United States to make necessary and proper laws, and 

4 Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment 

5 to the Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that the 

6 right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in 

7 each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed 

8 to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of 

9 her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or 

10 a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of 

11 preventing fertilization. 

12 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

13 In this Act: 

14 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The 

15 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include 

16 each member of the species homo sapiens at all 

17 stages of life, including the moment of fertilization 

18 or cloning, or other moment at which an individual 

19 member of the human species comes into being. 

20 (2) STATE.—For purposes of applying the 14th 

21 Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 

22 and other applicable provisions of the Constitution 

23 to carry out section 2, the term ‘‘State’’ includes the 

24 District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 99 IS

1 Rico, and each other territory or possession of the 

2 United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Gerald SCOTT, Appellant, v. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 25, 2019]

Gerald Scott, Boca Raton, pro se.

Carri S. Leininger of Williams, Leininger & Crosby, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

May, Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-147733 and 333-141169) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-56360, 333-130496 and 333-148185) of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2010 relating to the financial statements, financial
statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

|                       
|-----------------------
|Raleigh, North Carolina
|March 15, 2010
Exhibit 12.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS AMENDED

I, Tor Olav Troim, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Golden State Petro (IOM
I-A) PLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the company and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal controls over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal controls over financial reporting; and

5. The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: June 24, 2007


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
---------------------------
    Tor Olav Troim
    Principal Executive Officer
EX PARTE Lisa Meshelle PERRY

1161154 (CR-15-1051)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Stella MAZUR, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tavares E. FELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2937

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017095EN.01000601.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2017 — Fédération des entreprises de la beauté v Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

(Case C-3/17)

(2017/C 095/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération des entreprises de la beauté

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé, Ministre de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherché, Ministre de l’économie et des finances

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the recognition of equivalent courses that Member States may give in accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) concern only the courses delivered in countries outside the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the recognition of equivalent courses that Member States may give in accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) concern only the courses delivered in countries outside the European Union?

1

| 2. | Do the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Regulation authorise a Member State to determine the disciplines that may be regarded as ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology, within the meaning of the Regulation, and the levels of qualification that satisfy the requirements of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Regulation authorise a Member State to determine the disciplines that may be regarded as ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology, within the meaning of the Regulation, and the levels of qualification that satisfy the requirements of the Regulation?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, according to what criteria may the disciplines be considered ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, according to what criteria may the disciplines be considered ‘similar’ to medicine, pharmacy or toxicology?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TARRANCE DARON WHITLOCK, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-1232-M

)

WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director TDCJ-CID, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made Amended Findings, Conclusions and a

Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

ACCEPTS the Amended Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge. 

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by

reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation filed in this case in

support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find

this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable

jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01232-M Document 32 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 186
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

In the event, the petitioner will file a notice of appeal, the court notes that

( X ) the petitioner will proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

( ) the petitioner will need to pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED this 10 day of December, 2013. th

_________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on December 1,

1

2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may

direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a

certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may

seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A

motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order

entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues a

certificate of appealability. 

2

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01232-M Document 32 Filed 12/10/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 187
EXHIBIT 10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Extension of Consulting Agreement 
  
 This Extension of Consulting Agreement is made as of July 16, 2003, by and between TREX COMPANY, INC. and FERRARI CONSULTING, LLC. 
  
 The parties agree as follows: 
  
 1.    The parties entered into a Consulting Agreement dated as of March 17, 2003 (the “Consulting
Agreement”). The parties desire that the Consulting Agreement be extended an additional three (3) months. Accordingly, the first and last sentence of Section 4 of the Consulting Agreement are amended to replace “July 16, 2003” with
“October 16, 2003”. 
  
 2.  Subject to the
amendment above, all of the terms of the Consulting Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this document as of the date first set forth above. 
  
  

	TREX COMPANY, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Robert Matheny


	 Title:
	 	 President




  
  

	FERRARI CONSULTING, LLC
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Andrew U. Ferrari


	 Title:
	 	 President
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">John Vitale, Plaintiff-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>3800 Broadway Associates, LLC, Jordan Daniels Electrical Contractors, Inc., Fleet National Bank n/k/a Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., as successor by merger to Fleet National Bank, Bank of America Corporation and BNF Contractors, Inc., Defendants-Respondents, and Verizon Communications Inc., Defendant. Bank of America, N.A., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and BNF Contractors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered March 22, 2017, which granted defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Donald A. Miles, J.), entered March 22, 2017, reversed, without costs, and the <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>cross motions denied without prejudice to renewal after completion of discovery.</p><p>Plaintiff, an electrical apprentice, injured his back while transporting heavy pipes from and into areas involving different elevation levels.</p><p>The motion court should have denied defendants' motions for summary judgment as premature, since the record indicates that "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated" (CPLR 3212[f]). As no representatives from defendants have been deposed, all of the relevant contracts have not been produced, and the record suggests that crucial facts may be within defendants' knowledge, additional discovery is necessary (<i>see Jackson v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC</i>, 161 AD3d 666, 667 [2018]; <i>Solano v Skanska USA Civ. Northeast Inc.,</i> 148 AD3d 619, 619-620 [2017]; <i>Rodriguez v Coalition for Father Duffy, LLC, </i>112 AD3d 407, 408 [2013]; <i>Ali v Effron</i>, 106 AD3d 560 [2013]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 04, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

HAROLD G. FLOYD, ID # 14417-031, §

§

Petitioner, §

§ Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2489-M

v. §

§

DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, §

§

Respondent. §

___________________________________ §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On November 30, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan made Findings and a

Recommendation. No objections were filed. The Court thus reviews the Findings and

Recommendation for plain error. Finding no plain error, the Court accepts the Findings and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

The Respondent has notified the Court that Petitioner was released from custody on

November 20, 2007, and contends that his claims are therefore moot. The Court declines to

dismiss the case as moot. The credit against the federal sentence that the Court has determined

Petitioner is entitled to could support an alteration of the term of his supervised release. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e); Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917 (5 Cir. 2006). Thus, the Court concludes th

the case should be dismissed as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge are accepted.
2

SIGNED this 15 day of January, 2008. th

_________________________________

BARBARA M.G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS