alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
How to Get Rid of a Sharps Container 

Safe Disposal of Needles and Other Sharps Used At Home, At Work, or While Traveling 

There	are	several	ways	to	get	rid	of	a	sharps	disposal	container.	Check	with	your	local	trash	removal	services	or	

health	department	(listed	in	the	city	or	county	government	(blue)	pages	in	your	phone	book)	or	search	the	Internet	

for	safe	sharps	disposal	programs	available	in	your	area.

Some	examples	of	safe	sharps	disposal	methods	are	briefly	described	below:	

Drop Box or Supervised Collection Sites 

You	may	be	able	to	drop	off	your	sharps	disposal	containers	at	

collections	sites,	such	as	doctors’	offices,	hospitals,	pharmacies,	

health	departments,	medical	waste	facilities,	and	police	or	fire	

stations.	Services	may	be	free	or	have	a	nominal	fee.

Household Hazardous Waste Collection Sites 

You	may	be	able	to	drop	off	your	sharps	disposal	containers	at	

local	public	household	hazardous	waste	collection	sites.	These	

are	sites	that	also	commonly	accept	hazardous	materials	such	

as	household	cleaners,	paints,	and	motor	oil.

Mail-Back Programs 

You	may	be	able	to	mail	certain	FDA-cleared	sharps	disposal	

containers	to	a	collection	site	for	proper	disposal.	This	service	

usually	requires	a	fee.	Fees	vary,	depending	on	the	size	of	the	

container.	Follow	the	manufacturer’s	instructions	included	with	

the	disposal	container,	as	these	programs	may	have	specific	

requirements	for	mail-back.	

Residential Special Waste Pickup Services 

Your	community	may	provide	pick-up	services	using	a	sharps	

disposal	container	acceptable	to	the	pick	up	company,	either	

provided	to	you	by	the	pickup	services	company	or	one	that	

you	already	own,	depending	on	the	company	guidelines	for	

pick	up.	The	container	is	placed	outside	the	home	for	collection	

by	trained	special	waste	handlers.	Some	programs	require	

customers	to	call	for	pickup,	while	others	offer	regular	pickup	

schedules.

For more information specific to your state: 

Visit	the	Coalition	for	Safe	Community	Needle	Disposal’s	Safe	

Needle	Disposal	Web	site	to	find	information	including:

•	 types	of	sharps	containers	that	can	be	used,

•	 disposal	programs	in	your	area,

•	 how	to	label	your	sharps	disposal	containers,

•	 how	to	secure	the	lid	of	your	sharps	disposal	container,	and

•	whether	sharps	disposal	containers	can	be	thrown	away	in	

the	common	trash.

Safe Disposal of Needles and Other Sharps 

www.fda.gov/safesharpsdisposal
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13 CV 1109

)

MURPHY ICE & KOENEMAN, LLP f/k/a )

MURPHY LAW GROUP f/k/a MILLER )

MURPHY LLP, EDWARD L. MURPHY JR., )

and BENJAMIN D. ICE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company has filed a Complaint invoking this

Court’s diversity jurisdiction [DE 1], but the Court has questions over whether or not this is

proper. According to the Complaint, one of the defendants in this action, Murphy Ice &

Koeneman, LLP, is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the state of

Indiana. Partnerships, like the Defendant, are treated as citizens of every state of which any

partner or member is a citizen. Hart v. Terminex Int’l., 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003)

(quoting Market Street Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588, 589 (7th Cir. 1991), which

held that “for purposes of deciding whether a suit by or against a limited partnership satisfies the

requirement of complete diversity of citizenship . . . the citizenship of all the limited partners, as

well as of the general partner, counts”); Indiana Gas Co., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 314,

317 (7th Cir. 1998) (“General partnerships, limited partnerships, joint stock companies, and

unincorporated membership associations all are treated as citizens of every state of which any

partner or member is a citizen.”). Thus, in order to ascertain whether the parties are actually

case 3:13-cv-01109-PPS-CAN document 3 filed 10/23/13 page 1 of 2
diverse in this matter, the citizenship of all of the partners of defendant Murphy Ice &

Koeneman, LLP must be identified. Though the Complaint avers that Defendants Edward

Murphy and Benjamin Ice are partners in Murphy Ice and are Indiana citizens, the Complaint

fails to indicate if Murphy Ice has any other partners (and the name of the firm implies that it

very well might). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to clarify for the Court the citizenship of the

partners of Murphy Ice & Koeneman, LLP, on or before October 31, 2013. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 23, 2013

s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2

case 3:13-cv-01109-PPS-CAN document 3 filed 10/23/13 page 2 of 2
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1531 

For the relief of Veronica Kehinde Akintade. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Veronica Kehinde Akintade. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR 

4 VERONICA KEHINDE AKINTADE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Veronica Kehinde Akintade shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 
2 

•HR 1531 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Veronica Kehinde 

2 Akintade enters the United States before the filing dead3 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to 

4 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 

5 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

6 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Veronica Kehinde Akintade, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3 

•HR 1531 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Veronica Kehinde 

2 Akintade shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be ac3 corded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act. 

Æ
Exhibit 21.1
  LIST OF
    SUBSIDIARIES
    COMPANIES
    ORGANIZED IN THE UNITED STATES:
  FX Luxury, LLC (formerly known as FX Luxury Realty, LLC)

Delaware


100%*RH1, LLC

Nevada


100%Flag Luxury Riv, LLC

Delaware


100%FX Luxury Las Vegas Parent, LLC (formerly known as BP Parent,
    LLC)

Delaware


100%FX Luxury Las Vegas I, LLC(formerly known as Metroflag BP,
    LLC)

Nevada


100%FX Luxury Las Vegas II, LLC (formerly known as Metroflag Cable,
    LLC)

Nevada


100%     *
    
    Common membership interests
SCPW-18-0000577

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

CHARLES VITALE, NINA VITALE, Individually and in their

Representative Capacities and on Behalf of a Class of All Persons

Similarly Situated, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE DEAN E. OCHIAI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

D.R. HORTON, INC.; D.R. HORTON-SCHULER HOMES, LLC, Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CIV. NO. 15-1-1347-07)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioners Charles and Nina

Vitales’ petition for writ of mandamus, the documents attached

thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it

appears that petitioners fail to demonstrate that they have a

clear and indisputable right to the requested relief, that they

lack alternative means to seek relief, and that the respondent

judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion or

exceeded his jurisdiction in considering the motion for leave to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-18-0000577

23-JUN-2020

01:43 PM
file a third amended complaint. Petitioners, therefore, are not

entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court

has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has

acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty

to act); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,

cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedure). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 23, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DANIEL KOCH, JOHNNY RAY )

WELLS, JR., TRENT COLLINS, BRAD )

WEIKART, FRANKLIN LORTIE, KIRK )

HERRING, ZACKERY PEPPLE, DANNY )

PORTER, TIMOTHY NIBLACK, TOM )

SEITZ, SR., and ANTHONY FOLLIS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-72

)

JERRY W. BAILEY TRUCKING, INC., )

and ESTATE OF JERRY W. BAILEY, )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF STATUTORY ATTORNEY'S FEES,

COSTS AND DESIGNATION OF EVIDENCE

Comes now Plaintiffs, by counsel, hereby move for an award of statutory attorney fees in 

the amount of $201,820.00 and costs of $5,729.36 to be awarded to counsel for Plaintiffs and 

against Defendants, Jerry W. Bailey Trucking, Inc. and the Estate of Jerry W. Bailey.

Plaintiffs hereby designate the following evidence in support of this Motion:

1. Memorandum in Support.

2. Affidavit of Ronald E. Weldy attached hereto as Exhibit A.

a. Exhibit 1 – Clio Invoice

b. Exhibit 2 - Bill of Costs

3. Affidavit of Christopher Myers attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. Affidavit of Robert Kondras attached hereto as Exhibit C.

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00072-HAB document 263 filed 04/16/21 page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs hereby request statutory attorney fees against Defendants in the 

amount $201,820.00 and costs in the amount of $5,729.62, and for all other just and proper 

relief.

Respectfully submitted,

WELDY LAW

/s/ Ronald E. Weldy

Ronald E. Weldy, #22571-49

Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served via ECF on this 16th day of April, 

2021 to the following:

Theodore T. Storer – ttstorer@beersmallers.com

/s/ Ronald E. Weldy

Ronald E. Weldy, #22571-49

Weldy Law

8383 Craig Street

Suite 330

Indianapolis, IN 46250

Tel: (317) 842-6600

E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00072-HAB document 263 filed 04/16/21 page 2 of 2
NO. 07-02-0089-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	JULY 10, 2002

	______________________________

	RODRIGO RODRIGUEZ,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF LYNN COUNTY;

	NO. 94,2210-E; HON. GENE L. DULANEY, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	DISMISSAL

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant, Rodrigo Rodriguez, appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision.  Sentence was pronounced in open court on November 12, 2001.  Thus, the appellate record was due by March 19, 2002.  Tex. R. App. P. 35.2(a).  Neither the clerk’s record nor the reporter’s record has been received.  Furthermore, according to the reporter, the record has not been developed because: 1) he has not received a request from the appellant to develop the record; 2) he has not received payment; 3) appellant has not made arrangements to pay for same; and, 4) he did not receive a copy of the notice of appeal.

	Accordingly, the case was abated and remanded to the 106th District Court of Lynn County (trial court) to determine if 1) appellant desired to prosecute the appeal; 2) appellant was indigent; 3) counsel had been appointed to prosecute this appeal; 4)  appellant was entitled to appointed counsel; and 5) appellant was entitled to the preparation of a free appellate record. 

	The trial court conducted the hearing and the supplemental clerk’s record was filed on May 23, 2002.  Thereafter, it found that  appellant 1) wished to prosecute the appeal, 2) was not indigent, 3) was not entitled to appointed counsel, and 4) was able to pay for the appellate record.  So too did it find that the court reporter had not received a request for the transcription of the record from appellant.  Nor had the court clerk received a designation of record on appeal from him.

	Thereafter, the cause was reinstated.  Notice was then sent, on June 19, 2002, to appellant and appellant’s counsel directing appellant “to provide written proof that the records have been requested and arrangements for payment have been made for same pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 35.3" and that such proof be received by the Court by July 8, 2002 or the cause would be dismissed per Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W. 2d 133 (Tex. App. -- Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d).   The deadline lapsed without appellant providing such notice.  Instead, his counsel moved to withdraw, contending that appellant “had not maintained contact with the undersigned, paid attorney’s fees as agreed, or provided Attorney . . . with the funds necessary for the preparation of the appellate record . . . .”    

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution as per Rodriguez v. State, supra, and the motion of counsel to withdraw is granted.

                                                            				Per Curiam 

 Do not publish.
In re Johnny TRAYLOR, petitioner.

No. 12M117.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
Stephen Michael BOWERS, Sr., petitioner, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, et al.

No. 12-1360.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27371-27372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12572]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[License No. 02/02-5351]


Exim Capital Corporation

    Notice is hereby given that Exim Capital Corporation (Exim), 241 
Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10016, a Federal Licensee under the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the Act), in 
connection with the proposed financing of a small concern is seeking an 
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.903 Conflicts of 
interest of the SBA Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.903 (1994)). An 
exemption may not be granted by SBA until Notices of this transaction 
have been published. Exim proposes to provide debt financing to KBJ 
Cleaners, Inc. (KBJ) located 6-01 Saddle River Road, Fairlawn, New 
Jersey. The financing is contemplated for use in the expansion of KBJ's 
existing operations and additional working capital.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Section 
107.903(b)(1) of the regulations because Mr. Byung Hyun An 
[[Page 27372]] and Ms. Chu Ja An, 100% shareholders of KBJ are the 
brother-in-law and sister of Mr. Victor Chun, President and shareholder 
of Exim.
    Notice is further given that any person, not later than 15 days 
from the date of the publication of the Notice, submit written comments 
on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. 
Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20416.
    A copy of this Notice shall be published, in accordance with 
Section 107.903(e) of the Regulations, in a newspaper of general 
circulation in New York, New York.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: May 16, 1995.
Robert D. Stillman,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 95-12572 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2396

BANORO GARRETT; CURTEL GARRETT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SORENTO BURNS; ASHTON H. PULLY, JR.; GREAGORY W. KLEIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00558-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Banoro Garrett, Curtel Garrett, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing their civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the 

appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Garrett v. 

Burns, No. 2:09-cv-00558-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2009). 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.

DISMISSED
James A. LANG, et al., petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES.

No. 12-1125.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Platinum Studios, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Orrin Halper, Chief Finacial Officer & Principal Financial and Accounting Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

April 15, 2011

 

 

/s/ Orrin Halper 

 

 

Orrin Halper 

Chief Financial Officer

& Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

 

----
In re Willie Junior BROWN, petitioner.

No. 12-10862.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:14-cr-62 

 ) 2:14-cr-97 

NATHANIEL GREEN. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY 

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 Upon defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11, this matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Andrew P. Rodovich, United 

States Magistrate Judge, on April 8, 2015, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for 

the defendant, and counsel for the United States of America. 

 The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, before the 

Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record. 

 In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on 

the record, and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of Assistant United States Attorney Gary 

T. Bell, and of Attorney Paul Jeffrey Schlesinger, counsel for the defendant, 

 I FIND as follows: 

1. that the defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the 

plea is offered; 

2. that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not 

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse 

witnesses, and his right against compelled self-incrimination; 
2 

3. that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including 

the effect of the supervised release term, and the defendant understands that the 

Probation Department will prepare a pre-sentence report based upon the 

sentencing guidelines but that the court may depart from those guidelines under 

some circumstances; 

4. that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made 

and is not the result of force or threats or of promises; 

5. that the defendant is competent to plead guilty; 

6. that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a 

prosecution for perjury or false statement; 

7. that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further, 

 I RECOMMEND that the court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty to the offenses 

charged in Counts One and Four of the Indictment in cause number 2:14-cr-62 and Count One of 

the Indictment in cause number 2:14-cr-97 and have sentence imposed. A presentence report has 

been ordered. 

 ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2015. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge