alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

SUE KELLER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-CV-840-TLS-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants, ALAUNUS 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; and GREGORY 

CONIGLIARO. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Dina M. Cox 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 

case 3:12-cv-00840-TLS-CAN document 10 filed 01/09/13 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on January 9, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

/s/ Dina M. Cox 

 DINA M. COX 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

dcox@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\16 - Keller\Federal Court Action\appearance_DMC_Alaunus.docx

case 3:12-cv-00840-TLS-CAN document 10 filed 01/09/13 page 2 of 2
David DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1992

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ricky Ricardo DANIEL, petitioner, v. Darlene DREW, Warden, et al.

No. 12-8987.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1388 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1388

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
increase in expensing of certain depreciable business assets enacted by 
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2003 and extended by 
                the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Herger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
increase in expensing of certain depreciable business assets enacted by 
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2003 and extended by 
                the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

    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 ``Small Business Expensing Permanency 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) is amended by 
striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of taxable years beginning 
after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting ``$100,000''.
    (b) Increase in Qualifying Investment at Which Phaseout Begins.--
Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of such Code (relating to reduction in 
limitation) is amended by striking ``$200,000 ($400,000 in the case of 
taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting 
``$400,000''.
    (c) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 179(b)(5)(A) of such Code 
(relating to inflation adjustments) is amended by striking ``and before 
2006''.
    (d) Revocation of Election.--Section 179(c)(2) of such Code 
(relating to election irrevocable) is amended by striking ``and before 
2006''.
    (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Cory HUDSON, petitioner, v. Debra SCUTT, Warden.

No. 12-9770.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY MAYS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge. (CR-95-70) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Mays pled guilty to four counts of distributing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996), and was sentenced to a term of 78 months imprisonment. Mays's only contention in this appeal is that the sentencing court erred byrefusing to reduce his offense level based on acceptance of responsibility because of his continued drug use while on pretrial release. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a) (Nov. 1994). It is undisputed that Mays submitted sevenpositive urine screens for marijuana, one of which was also positive for cocaine use, during a period of approximately two months while he was on pretrial release. We find that the district court properly denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 based on Mays's continued drug use following his arrest and prior to sentencing. See United States v. Underwood , 970 F.2d 1336, 1338-39 (4th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Mays cites no authority for his position that his continued drug use should be excused because of his addiction to drugs, and we find such position lacking in merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1335 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the mandatory retirement 

age for members of the Capitol Police from 57 to 60 years of age. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2005 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself and Mr. RAMSTAD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 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 amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the mandatory retirement age for members of the Capitol Police 

from 57 to 60 years of age. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE. 

4 (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—Section 

5 8335(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘57’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘60’’; and 
2 

•HR 1335 IH 

1 (2) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘60’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘65’’. 

3 (b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM.— 

4 Section 8425(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in the first sentence by striking ‘‘57’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘60’’; and 

8 (2) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘60’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘65’’. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1294 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to establish a priority for the payment 

of claims for duties paid to the United States by licensed customs 

brokers and sureties on behalf of a debtor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2005 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to establish a priority 

for the payment of claims for duties paid to the United 

States by licensed customs brokers and sureties on behalf 

of a debtor. 

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 ‘‘Customs Business 

5 Fairness Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 507(a) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 
2 

•HR 1294 IH 

1 ‘‘(10) Tenth, allowed unsecured claims of cus2 toms brokers (as defined in section 641 of the Tariff 

3 Act of 1930) and sureties (as provided in section 

4 623 of the Tariff Act of 1930) for duties, taxes, or 

5 other charges paid to the Bureau of Customs and 

6 Border Protection of the Department of Homeland 

7 Security on behalf of the debtor arising out of the 

8 importation of merchandise entered for consumption 

9 within one year before the date of the filing of the 

10 petition.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT. 

12 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub13 section (b), this Act and the amendment made by this Act 

14 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

15 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment 

16 made by this Act shall apply only with respect to cases 

17 commenced under title 11, United States Code, on or after 

18 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 137 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 

in income taxes on Social Security benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the 1993 increase in income taxes on Social Security benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1993 INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL 

4 SECURITY BENEFITS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 86(a) of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social se7 curity and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended 

8 by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘This 

9 paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year beginning 

10 after December 31, 2004.’’ 
2 

•HR 137 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 871(a)(3) of 

3 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘85 percent’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘50 percent’’. 

5 (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(e)(1) 

6 of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public 

7 Law 98–21) is amended— 

8 (i) by striking ‘‘(A) There’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘There’’; 

10 (ii) by striking ‘‘(i)’’ immediately following 

11 ‘‘amounts equivalent to’’; and 

12 (iii) by striking ‘‘, less (ii)’’ and all that 

13 follows and inserting a period. 

14 (B) Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of such Act 

15 is amended by striking subparagraph (B). 

16 (C) Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act 

17 is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and by re18 designating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B). 

19 (D) Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such 

20 Act is amended in the first sentence by striking 

21 ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2004. 

Æ
Verdale HANDY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9903.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
ww oe R ue gar Ve a UT a BA S

int a Sis 21 ew Ra oS chest ae FE bel wy arf five gl wey A sel irra on fh AR ere A Frery 1
A wa oF Ge weqE fear oie ved VS fe A aoe on rer) BA ter ae a) AA TH Hrergsit wT carey wR UAT
eT TAT | ware & fry ver omee orem) Hay sere PRT

arret £9, de ae at vet oa
tela aga dae os wei | esr,
aot cit dix as wa aif H oe
fea ore FIGHT STAT RET |

4} ater alt a gear wt) ad srr ald,
ara OU aaa OI salad wr aie oa
May At aa Sta ef, GT A me] ira

Hae wa ah 8 Ve wea al
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         581,088
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,953,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,019,766
<PP&E>                                       5,610,993
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,088,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,688,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,552,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       201,079
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,960,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,688,748
<SALES>                                     11,595,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,595,216
<CGS>                                        7,382,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,382,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,363,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,198,385)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,198,385)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,198,385)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Christopher Cornelius SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3258

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Loãng xương

Bệnh loãng xương là gì?

Loãng xương là một căn bệnh khiến xương 

rất yếu và dễ gãy.

Ai có nguy cơ?

Bất kỳ ai cũng có thể bị loãng xương, nhưng 

phụ nữ dễ mắc bệnh này hơn nam giới. Bạn 

có nhiều khả năng mắc bệnh hơn nếu bạn:

• Trên 50 tuổi

• Hút thuốc

• Có trọng lượng cơ thể thấp

• Có thành viên trong gia đình bị loãng 

xương hoặc gãy xương

• Không tập thể dục đầy đủ

• Uống rượu (hơn 3 ly/ngày)

• Dùng một số loại thuốc trong thời gian dài 

như thuốc chống co giật hoặc steroid

Làm thế nào để biết liệu 

tôi có bị loãng xương hay 

không?

Có những xét nghiệm sử dụng tia X hoặc 

sóng âm thanh để đo mật độ xương. Các xét 

nghiệm này không gây đau đớn. Hãy hỏi bác 

sĩ xem bạn có nên đi xét nghiệm hay không.

• Xét nghiệm X-quang, được gọi là dò quét 

DXA, kiểm tra cột sống, hông, hoặc cổ tay 

của bạn. Dò quét DXA sử dụng rất ít sóng 

x-quang.

• Kiểm tra sóng âm mới hơn, được gọi là siêu 

âm, kiểm tra gót chân của bạn.

Điều trị như thế nào?

Không có cách nào chữa khỏi bệnh loãng 

xương. Có những điều bạn có thể làm để làm 

chậm sự phát triển của căn bệnh. Nói chuyện 

với bác sĩ của bạn để lập kế hoạch giữ cho 

xương của bạn khỏe mạnh.

Văn Phòng Sức Khỏe Phụ Nữ của FDA

www.fda.gov/womens
 Tờ thông tin này được phát triển bởi Văn Phòng Sức Khỏe Phụ Nữ của FDA.

Để nhận các nguồn thông tin về sức khỏe của phụ nữ khác, hãy truy cập

www.fda.gov/womens

2021

Thuốc Theo Toa

Có những loại thuốc theo toa mà bạn có thể 

dùng. Những loại thuốc này có dạng viên 

nén, miếng dán, hoặc thuốc chích (tiêm). Nói 

chuyện với bác sĩ, y tá, hoặc dược sĩ của bạn 

trước khi bạn ngừng dùng thuốc.

Bisphosphonates là một loại thuốc phổ biến 

được dùng để làm chậm quá trình mất xương. 

Bác sĩ có thể cung cấp cho bạn các loại thuốc 

khác.

• Nói chuyện với bác sĩ của bạn về thời gian 

bạn nên dùng các loại thuốc này.

• Hãy cho bác sĩ biết nếu bạn bắt đầu có các 

phản ứng phụ như đau mới ở hông hoặc 

đùi. Một số người dùng những loại thuốc 

này đã bị gãy xương đùi.

• Một số loại thuốc này có thể gây kích ứng cổ 

họng của bạn.

• Cũng có thể gây ra các vấn đề về xương 

hàm nghiêm trọng.

Bổ Sung Chế Độ Ăn Uống

Thực phẩm chức năng là sản phẩm mà mọi 

người thêm vào chế độ ăn uống của họ. Chúng 

bao gồm vitamin (thuốc bổ), bột, thanh kẹo 

năng lượng, và thảo mộc.

Nói chuyện với bác sĩ của bạn trước khi bạn 

dùng bất kỳ chất bổ sung chế độ ăn uống nào. 

Những chất này có thể ảnh hưởng đến các loại 

thuốc khác của bạn và khiến bạn bị bệnh.

Thay Đổi Lối Sống

Có những thay đổi lối sống mà bạn có thể thực 

hiện để giảm nguy cơ loãng xương.

• Duy trì hoạt động thể chất. Tập thể dục chịu 

sức nặng như đi bộ.

• Không hút thuốc.

• Hạn chế sử dụng rượu bia.

• Bổ sung cho đủ canxi và vitamin D trong chế 

độ ăn uống của bạn. Bác sĩ có thể đề nghị 

dùng thuốc viên canxi và vitamin.

Loãng xương

Loãng xương (VIETNAMESE)
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 3 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 4 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 5 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 6 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 7 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 8 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 9 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 10 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 11 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 12 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 13 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 14 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 15 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 16 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 17 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 18 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 19 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 20 of 21
Case 3:17-cv-00765-VC Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 21 of 21
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1681. IN THE INTEREST OF A. N. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER).

We granted Chelsea Lee Johns’ application for discretionary review of the

juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two minor children, 

A. N. and B. N. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the

application for discretionary review wasimprovidently granted, and it is ordered that

this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 07, 2019

03/07/2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6169

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JERALD VINCENT POSEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00340-HEH-8; 3:09-cv-00397-HEH)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerald Vincent Posey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerald Vincent Posey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Posey 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DEBBY MOORE, as personal representative of )

the estate of RICHARD STRICLER, deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:12-CV-379

)

TEXAS ROADHOUSE OF FORT WAYNE, )

LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER

On October 30, 2012, this Court issued an order calling for Defendant Texas Roadhouse

of Fort Wayne, LLC to file an Amended Notice of Removal properly reciting the citizenship of

Plaintiff Debby Moore. (Docket # 9.) Because Moore is suing as the personal representative of

decedent Richard Stricler’s estate, however, it is Stricler’s citizenship, as the decedent, that

governs for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) (stating that “the legal

representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State

as the decedent”); Gustafson v. zumBrunnen, 546 F.3d 398, 400-01 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that

the federal diversity statute treats the legal representative of a decedent’s estate as a citizen of the

same state as the decedent). 

Accordingly, the Amended Notice of Removal that Defendant has previously been

ordered to file should recite, on personal knowledge, the citizenship of decedent Richard Stricler,

which is based on his domicile, Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993), rather than

1
the citizenship of Plaintiff Debby Moore.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 31st day of October, 2012.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2