alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AKIL TYMES

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 3654

_____________ ________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

.

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay K ubica, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK

, RAY

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Distúrbios do Sono

Serviço de Saúde da Mulher do FDA 

www.fda.gov/womens

Fatos Básicos sobre o Sono

A maioria dos adultos precisa de 7 a 8 horas de 

sono por noite. Nem todos conseguem dormir o 

quanto precisam.

Às vezes, você pode ter problemas para dormir 

devido à:

• Estresse

• Problemas de saúde e medicamentos

• Longas horas/turnos de trabalho

• Luz ou barulho

• Beber álcool ou comer muito próximo da hora 

de dormir

Se você tiver problemas para adormecer ou 

dormir a maioria das noites, você pode ter um 

distúrbio do sono chamado insônia.

Algumas pessoas têm distúrbios do sono mais 

graves. Fale com seu médico se você:

• Adormecer durante o dia

• Roncar ou emitir ruídos de asfixia durante o 

sono

• Apresentar um desejo estranho e incontrolável 

ou desejo de mexer as pernas

Medicamentos que ajudam a dormir

Existem remédios que podem ajudá-lo a pegar 

no sono ou a dormir. Alguns medicamentos para 

dormir precisam de prescrição médica. Você 

pode obter outros medicamentos isentos de 

prescrição (MIP) sem receita médica.

Prescrição

Os medicamentos com prescrição médica para 

dormir funcionam bem para muitas pessoas, mas 

podem causar sérios efeitos colaterais.

• Fale com seu médico sobre os riscos e 

benefícios do uso de medicamentos para 

dormir com prescrição médica.

• Os medicamentos para insônia podem afetar 

sua lucidez para dirigir na manhã seguinte ao 

seu uso.

• Os medicamentos para dormir podem causar 

efeitos colaterais raros, como por exemplo:

- Reações alérgicas severas

- Forte inchaço facial

- Comportamentos como telefonar, comer, 

fazer sexo ou dirigir enquanto você não está 

totalmente desperto

Medicamentos Isentos de Prescrição 

(MIP)

Os MIPs para dormir também têm efeitos 

colaterais. Leia a “Bula” para saber mais sobre os 

efeitos colaterais de seu MIP para dormir. 
 Esta ficha foi desenvolvida pelo Serviço de Saúde da Mulher do FDA.

Para obter mais materiais de saúde da mulher, consulte

www.fda.gov/womens

2021

Distúrbios do Sono

Dicas para Dormir Melhor

Mudar os seus hábitos noturnos pode ajudá-lo a conseguir o sono que você precisa.

• Vá para a cama e se levante na mesma hora todos os dias.

• Durma em um quarto escuro e silencioso.

• Evite a cafeína e a nicotina.

• Não beba álcool antes de dormir.

• Faça algo para ajudá-lo a relaxar antes de dormir.

• Não se exercite antes de dormir.

• Não tire uma soneca depois das 15h.

• Não faça uma grande refeição antes de dormir.

Fale com um profissional de saúde se você apresentar problemas para dormir 

quase todas as noites por mais de 2 semanas.

Distúrbios do Sono (PORTUGUESE)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0088 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LEWIS LEON BRYSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until July 15, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court June 15 2022

06/15/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0088
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________

_____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

June 15, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 134010 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE CONOR ASHTON SERWATOWSKI, DUNCAN SAWYER SERWATOWSKI, LOGAN KINCAID SERWATOWSKI, and QUENTIN DEVIN SERW ATOWSKI, Minors.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 134010 COA: 274395 Oakland CC Family Division: 01-654430-NA DEBBIE SERWATOWSKI, Respondent-Appellant,

and

ANDREW SERWATOWSKI, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 8, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0612 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 15, 2007

Clerk
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 31, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-2312

Lower Tribunal No. 16-2434

________________

Ishsha Shalem,

Petitioner,

vs.

Daniel Junior, etc., et al.,

Respondents.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant

Public Defender, for petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant

Attorney General, for respondent State of Florida. 

Before SUAREZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

This matter first came before this Court upon Petitioner Ishsha Shalem’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming her pretrial detention without bond is

unlawful. A review of the record shows that the Petitioner was ordered detained

without any condition for pretrial release pending trial. The record and transcripts
from the hearings showed that the requirements of section 907.041, Florida

Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132 were not

followed and that the trial court had failed to make the proper findings before

ordering pretrial detention. We granted the petition and ordered the trial court to

hold a hearing no later than Monday, October 30, 2017 and to comply with the

requirements of section 907.041, Florida Statutes (2017) and Florida Rules of

Criminal Procedure 3.131 and 3.132 in determining the appropriate conditions for

either release or pretrial detention. 

The matter is back before us on the Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Habeas

Corpus. A review of the transcript from the hearing on Monday, October 30, 2017

shows that the trial court failed to delineate the findings and reasons for pretrial

detention. As such, we send this matter back – once more – for a hearing to be

held before noon Wednesday, November 1, 2017, and for the trial court to

specifically set forth its findings, in accordance with the Rules of Criminal

Procedure and section 907.041, for either pretrial release or detention. The

Petitioner shall remain in custody pending the determination of pretrial release or

detention.

We also find that in the interest of pursuing fairness, further proceedings in

this case should be held before a different judge. 

2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00714-CR

Stephen Winnicki, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 95-092-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Stephen Winnicki pleaded guilty to the offense of credit card abuse. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.31 (West Supp. 2007). The district court assessed punishment at

two years’ confinement in state jail and a $2,500 fine but suspended imposition of the sentence and

placed Winnicki on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion

to revoke probation, alleging that Winnicki violated the terms and conditions of his probation. At

a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Winnicki pleaded true to the violations alleged. The

district court sentenced Winnicki to 24 months’ confinement in state jail.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio,
2

488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,

516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s

brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro

se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

_____________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: August 21, 2008

Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

CONNIE REYES and DANIEL V. REYES, )

Parents of S.R. a minor child, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-133-PRC

)

WILLIAM J. RUCKER, DDS, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Compel Deposition of Nadira Ahmed, MD

[DE 53], filed by Defendant William J. Rucker, DDS on November 3, 2014. Plaintiffs have not filed

a response, and the time to do so has passed.

The discovery deadline was August 29, 2014. On August 20, 2014, just nine days before the

close of discovery, counsel for Defendant sent correspondence to counsel for Plaintiff requesting

the deposition of S.R.’s family physician, Dr. Ahmed.

Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 30-1(b) provides: “Attorneys must schedule

depositions with a least 14-days’ notice, unless opposing counsel agrees to shorter notice or the court

orders otherwise.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 30-1(b). In addition, discovery must be initiated sufficiently in

advance of the discovery deadline so that it can be completed before the discovery deadline. See

Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Dep’t, No. (N.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2014) (citing Shadle v. First Fin. Bank,

N.A., No. 1:09-CV-37, 2009 WL 3787006, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009) (collecting cases refusing

to require opposing parties to respond to discovery requests served late in the discovery period));

NIPSCO v. Colorado Westmoreland, Inc., 112 F.R.D. 423, (N.D. Ind. 1986) (holding that discovery

must be completed within the time established by the court, which includes serving requests for

written discovery with sufficient time for the responses to be filed within the discovery period).
Defendant has offered no explanation why this deposition was not requested earlier in the

discovery process to allow sufficient time for the deposition to be noticed under the Local Rule and

to be taken prior to the close of discovery.

Because Defendant’s request for the deposition was not timely, the Court hereby DENIES

the Motion to Compel Deposition of Nadira Ahmed, MD [DE 53].

SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2014.

 s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: All counsel of record

2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David OToole, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                       |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: March 6, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ DAVID OTOOLE                     |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | David OToole Chief Financial
Officer |  | 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Cecil Jerome HATCHETT, petitioner, v. Rick COURSEY, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution.

No. 12-9121.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Letter for Loan Extension Application



 Exhibit 10.32(b) 
  
 Letter for Loan Extension Application 
  
 November 5, 2003 
  

To: ICBC Leshan City Branch 
  
 Dear Sirs, 
  
 In accordance with Section 3.2 of the loan facility (“Loan Agreement”) entered into on November 17, 2000 between Leshan-Phoenix Semiconductor Company Limited
(“Leshan”) and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Leshan hereby requests extensions for the draw-downs under the Loan Agreement, as set forth below. Pursuant to Section 3.2, Leshan requests that the original due date of each draw
down be extended by three years. Kindly review and confirm in writing by November 14, 2003 the below loan extensions. All such extensions of maturity shall be on the same terms applied at the time of the original draw-down. 
  

	(1)	Six loans in dollar with a total of US$16 million (US$ Portion as defined in the Loan Agreement). 

  

							
	 Principal

	 	 Withdraw Date

	 	 Original Due Date

	 	 Extension Date


	 $3.5M
	 	Dec 12, 2000	 	Dec 12, 2003	 	Dec 12, 2006
	 $3M
	 	Dec 13, 2000	 	Dec 13, 2003	 	Dec 13, 2006
	 $3.5M
	 	Dec 20, 2000	 	Dec 20, 2003	 	Dec 20, 2006
	 $2M
	 	Feb 13, 2001	 	Feb 13, 2004	 	Feb 13, 2007
	 $2M
	 	Mar 5, 2001	 	Mar 5, 2004	 	Mar 5, 2007
	 $2M
	 	Mar 8, 2001	 	Mar 8, 2004	 	Mar 8, 2007

  

	(2)	Five loans in RMB with a total of ¥33.2 million (RMB Portion as defined in the Loan Agreement). 

  

							
	 Principal

	 	 Withdraw Date

	 	 Original Due Date

	 	 Extension Date


	 ¥4M
	 	Dec 14, 2000	 	Dec 14, 2003	 	Dec 14, 2006
	 ¥10M
	 	Jan 9, 2001	 	Jan 9, 2004	 	Jan 9, 2007
	 ¥10M
	 	Feb 13, 2001	 	Feb 13, 2004	 	Feb 13, 2007
	 ¥8M
	 	Mar 6, 2001	 	Mar 6, 2004	 	Mar 6, 2007
	 ¥1.2M
	 	Mar 13, 2001	 	Mar 13, 2004	 	Mar 13, 2007

  
 Yours
sincerely, 
  

							
	[In this space, translated from Mandarin, is the following: chop of ICBC Leshan City Branch bank with handwritten date of 11/7/03, the signature of the General Manager, Ms. Zhu
Xuecun below the statement “agree to extensions.”]	 	 	 	 	 	 Leshan-Phoenix Semiconductor Co. Ltd.

	 	 	 	 	 	  
 /s/    ALAN
ZHANG

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 Alan Zhang, Financial Controller
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         I,  Allen H.  Blake,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of First
Banks,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),   certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)   The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the  Company  for  the
               quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2006 (the "Report")  fully
               complies with the  requirements of Sections 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  results  of
               operations of the Company.


Date:  November 13, 2006

                                           By: /s/ Allen H. Blake
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                   Allen H. Blake
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6426

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

TRACY MAURICE THOMAS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00020-BR-1; 4:12-cv-00001-BR) 

 

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Tracy Maurice Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tracy Maurice Thomas 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). 

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 Thomas 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
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.43

                                SEVERANCE POLICY

If you are a regular full time employee you may be eligible for severance pay if
you lose your job due to change of control of the company. This policy is not
intended for normal involuntary loss of job due to downsizing, layoff,
performance, or misconduct. This policy will apply to you only if you lose your
position within a two-year period of a change in control, which shall be defined
to occur when there is a change in the identity of a majority of the members of
the company's Board of Directors. This policy will apply if, as a result of the
change in control, your employment is terminated (1) because your position is
eliminated; (2) because continuing to work in your position would require you to
transfer to a work site outside a 100-mile radius of your work location at the
time of change in control, or (3) because your responsibilities change so
substantially that you have effectively been removed from the position held by
you prior to the change in control.

SEVERANCE BENEFIT

Each eligible employee who is affected by a qualified reduction will receive
severance pay based on the schedule listed below. Severance pay will be paid on
each regularly scheduled payday and the company will continue pay its share of
your health and/or dental insurance benefits if needed. The company will
continue deducting the employee portion of the insurance benefits until directed
to stop. Your Life insurance, AD&D, long term and short term disability will
cease at the end of the month in which you are terminated. Life insurance is
available through COBRA continuation. Severance pay for non-exempt (hourly)
employees will be based on a normal 40 hour week (including shift differential
if applicable) and exempt employees salaries will be determined by base salary
only. Bonuses, commission, or the value of stock options granted, will not be
used in determining base pay.

         Non Management employees

         Three (3)} weeks severance for each consecutive year of service to a
         maximum of twelve (12) months and a minimum of two (2) months.
         In addition, assistance will be provided to prepare resumes and provide
         copying service.

         Managers

         One (1) month severance for each year of consecutive service to maximum
         of twelve (12) months and a minimum of two (2) months.
         In addition, outplacement assistance to a maximum value of $4000.00
         will be provided.

         Officers

         Twelve (12) months severance.
         In addition, outplacement assistance to a maximum of $10,000.00 will be
         provided.

During your severance period you will not be accruing vacation or sick time nor
will you be eligible to contribute to the child care deduction plan or the 401k
plan. Any accrued vacation at the time of separation will be paid in a lump sum
as soon as administratively feasible.
Jose GONZALEZ-ZAVALA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9747.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *Peugh v. United States,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013).