alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John DOE and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-7674.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 30, 2004.

Sebastian Desantis, DeSantis, Sabilia & Waggoner, New London, CT, for Appellant.

*759Holly M. Polglase, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy (Timothy M. Roche), Boston, MA, for Appellee, of counsel.

Present: SACK, SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and Lewis A. KAPLAN, District Judge.*

*

 Of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants Jane and John Doe appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee American Medical Systems, Inc. (“AMS”), arguing that the district court erred by excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ proposed expert witness, Dr. Barry Feinberg, and that, with such testimony, AMS’s motion for summary judgment would have been denied. Dr. Feinberg’s deposition testimony indicates that he would have testified that the AMS penile prosthesis implanted in John Doe was defectively manufactured. The district court determined, however, that Dr. Feinberg was not qualified to testify as an expert in this matter and that his methods were inherently unreliable.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Dr. Feinberg lacked the “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” needed to testify that the prosthesis implanted in John Doe was defective. Fed.R.Evid. 702. Although Dr. Feinberg has substantial engineering credentials, he is not an expert in penile implants or similar devices. His involvement with penile implants almost exclusively consists of his work as an expert witness. His formal medical training is limited to seminars addressing medical topics and three courses taken while pursuing his engineering doctorate.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that Dr. Feinberg’s methods were not “the product of reliable principles and methods.” *Id.*Had he been allowed to testify, Dr. Feinberg would have stated that (1) the implant failed prematurely; (2) the failure was not caused by damage from a sharp surgical instrument; and (3) the prosthesis was defectively manufactured in that the tubing used in the device could not withstand “normal” forces. Dr. Feinberg reached these conclusions through examination and extrapolation unsupported by expert qualifications and by ignoring alternative explanations. For example, Dr. Feinberg presents little explanation for excluding undue stress on the prosthesis, perhaps caused by John Doe, as a potential cause of its failure. His conclusions are “connected to existing data only by ... [his own] *ipse dixit”*and are thus unreliable. *General Elec. Co. v. Joiner,*522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512,139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Axcess International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report was prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN GRIEBENOWAllan Griebenow, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2718-16T1

KENNETH MILLER,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SUSAN MARGOLIS MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

Submitted September 13, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Hoffman and Firko.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, 

Docket No. FM-18-1143-12.

Budd Larner, PC, attorneys for appellant (Barry L. 

Baime, Patricia Tuckman, and Jessie M. Mills, on the 

brief).

Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, PA, attorneys for 

respondent (Rita M. Aquilio, Jeralyn L. Lawrence, and 

Daniel A. Burton, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

September 20, 2018
2

A-2718-16T1

Prior to argument, the parties advised the matter had been amicably 

adjusted, and they have stipulated to this appeal's dismissal. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
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.

November 9 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk Nov ember 9 , 2016

153194 (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 153194

v COA: 330799

Chippewa CC: 14

- 001527

- FC

CRISTY JEAN WILSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time

for filing its answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED

. The answer

filed on October 31, 2016, is accepted for filing.
---

Exhibit 99.14


CONSENT OF EXPERT To:

   United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549Alberta Securities CommissionBritish Columbia Securities CommissionOntario Securities CommissionRio Alto Mining Limited
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Technical report entitled “La Arena Project, Peru”, effective December 31st, 2013 (the “Report” prepared for Rio Alto Mining Limited (the “Company") I, Greg Lane, do hereby confirm that I am a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 and a co-author of the Report. The undersigned, for himself, pursuant to Section 8.3 of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects confirms thatthis letter is being filed as the consent to the use of extracts from, or summaries of, the Report in the Company's Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the "AIF") and to being named in the AIF. The undersigned further acknowledges that the AIF will be filed as an Exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the "Form 40-F") and consents to being named in the Form 40-F and authorize the use of the information represented therein relating to the Report.  DATED the 28th day of March 2014 By:

   /s/ Mr. Greg LaneName: Mr. Greg Lane, FAusIMM,Company: AusencoTitle: Chief Technical Officer


---
Jenifer A. LOCKWOOD, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7498.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10583]



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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

14 CFR Part 1245


Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NASA is amending 24 CFR part 1245 by removing Subpart 2, 
``Licensing of NASA Inventions.'' The Department of Commerce has issued 
similar regulations which prescribe the terms, conditions, and 
procedures upon which a federally-owned invention may be licensed. 
These regulations are codified at 37 CFR Part 404, ``Licensing of 
Government-Owned Inventions.'' NASA began granting licenses in 
accordance with the Department of Commerce regulations on March 13, 
1995. All licenses agreements executed prior to this date will operate 
under the previous regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John G. Mannix, 202-358-2424.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1245

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Inventions and 
patents.

    Under the authority, 42 U.S.C. 2473, 14 CFR Part 1245 is amended as 
follows:

PART 1245--[AMENDED]

Subpart 2--[Removed and Reserved]

    In 14 CFR Part 1245, Subpart 2 (consisting of SS 1245.200 through 
1245.214) is removed and reserved.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-10583 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
# Official Journal C 395/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 395 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6131 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 395

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6131 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 395/01 | Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 395/01

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.8948 — Spirit/Asco) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 395/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 395/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 395/03 | Call for proposals — Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2019 | 3 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 395/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9077 — PSPIB/Brookfield/Quadreal/BREP Brazil/Brookfield Brazil Retail) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 19 |
| 2018/C 395/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9061 — GETEC Wärme & Effizienz/SW Hanau/Pionierwerk) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 21 |
| 2018/C 395/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8907 — Aperam/VDM) (
  1
  ) | 22 |
| 2018/C 395/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9108 — PepsiCo/SodaStream International) (
  1
  ) | 23 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2018/C 395/03

Call for proposals — Support for information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2019

3

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 395/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9077 — PSPIB/Brookfield/Quadreal/BREP Brazil/Brookfield Brazil Retail) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

19

2018/C 395/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9061 — GETEC Wärme & Effizienz/SW Hanau/Pionierwerk) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

21

2018/C 395/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8907 — Aperam/VDM) (
  1
  )

1

22

2018/C 395/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9108 — PepsiCo/SodaStream International) (
  1
  )

1

23

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 21-0321 

DON DANIELS, as conservator of the Estate of SARAH DANIELS, 

 Plaintiff and Appellee, 

 v. 

GALLATIN COUNTY, RICK BLACKWOOD, and ONE BEACON INSURANCE 

GROUP, LLC, d/b/a ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the Montana Eighteenth Judical District 

Gallatin County Casue No. DV-18-17B 

Honorable Judge Rienne H. McElyea 

ORDER DISMISSING GALLATIN COUNTY AND RICK BLACKWOOD’S 

APPEAL 

 Upon stipulation of the parties and for good cause showing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gallatin County and Rick Blackwood’s

motion to dismiss their appeal and withdraw their opening brief is GRANTED. 

 DATED this ____, _______ 2021. 

 By: 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 3 2021

12/03/2021
Robert Tino ARMENDARIZ, petitioner, v. Martin BITER, Warden.

No. 12-9438.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
PROMISSORY NOTE

$437,500.00                                                        March 3, 2004
                                                              New York, New York

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Stronghold Technologies, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, having a place of business at 106 Allen Road Basking Ridge, New
Jersey, 07920 ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of Stanford Financial
Group ("Payee"), at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1200, Miami, Fl., or at
such other address as Payee may from time to time specify by written notice, the
sum of Four-hundred thirty-seven thousand and five hundred dollars ($437,500.00)
Dollars, payable on March 3, 2007 (the "Due Date"). This Promissory Note shall
accrue interest at a rate of 8% per annum.

All or any part of this Promissory Note may be prepaid at any time without
penalty or premium. This Promissory Note is not assignable or negotiable by the
Payee, and is not assignable by the Maker.

This Promissory Note may not be changed orally but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change,
modification or discharge is sought.

This Note shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of
New Jersey and, as to matters of construction, validity or performance, shall be
governed by the internal substantial laws of such state and not the law of
conflicts of law.


MAKER                                    Agreed and Accepted
                                         PAYEE


Stronghold Technologies                  Stanford Venture Group Venture Group


By /s/  Christopher J. Carey              By
   ----------------------------             ------------------------------
Denarieya Letrex SMITH v. STATE

CR-16-0601

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Sukhdev RYE, petitioner, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, et al.

No. 12-8969.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate Circuit, denied.
Exhibit 31.1
                                                                    ------------
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Paul W. Mobley, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noble Roman's,
Inc.;

     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 (that 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.


Date:  May 12, 2005                                  /s/ Paul W. Mobley
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Paul W. Mobley
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
      32.1




**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 Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Elizabeth Plaza,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Manuel O. Morera, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





/s/
                Elizabeth Plaza
            /s/
                Manuel O. MoreraElizabeth
                Plaza
            Manuel
                O. MoreraChief
                Executive Officer
            Chief
                Financial Officer





September
      13, 2007