alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −32)

On October 2, 2012, the Panel transferred 8 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2012). Since that time, 192 additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Indiana and assigned to

Judge Miller.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Indiana for the reasons stated in the order of October 2, 2012, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert L Miller, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case MDL No. 2391 Document 356 Filed 04/12/13 Page 1 of 2

Apr 12, 2013
IN RE: BIOMET M2A MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2391

SCHEDULE CTO−32 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

FLORIDA SOUTHERN

FLS 0 13−60550 Felinski v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC et al

LOUISIANA EASTERN

LAE 2 12−02115 Cox v. Biomet, Inc. et al

NEVADA

NV 2 13−00172 Popick v. Biomet, Inc. et al

Case MDL No. 2391 Document 356 Filed 04/12/13 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12200]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Purdue University, Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of 
Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 95-004. Applicant: Purdue University, West 
Lafayette, IN 47907. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model CM200. 
Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 60 
FR 9662, February 21, 1995. Order Date: July 28, 1994.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission 
electron microscope (CTEM) and is intended for research or scientific 
educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of the instrument.


Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff
[FR Doc. 95-12200 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-090-CV

IN RE DAMIEN DEMARQUIS HUCKABY RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is

of the opinion that relief should be denied as moot. Accordingly, relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 27, 2009
Paul T. CLARKE, petitioner, v. Steve RADER, Warden.

No. 13-6614.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-3   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 7
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00446-CV

In re David O’Connor

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

Relator’s motion for emergency stay is also denied.

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Filed: September 10, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27713-27714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12815]



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



ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Assembly of Administrative Conference; Meeting

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 
92-463), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Assembly of the 
Administrative Conference of the United States.

DATES: Thursday, June 15, 1995, 1:00 p.m.; Friday, June 16, 1995, 9:00 
a.m.

ADDRESSES: Amphitheatre of the Office of Thrift Supervision, Second 
Floor, 1700 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Barnow (202) 254-7020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assembly of the Administrative 
Conference of the United States makes recommendations to administrative 
agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the 
United States regarding the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the 
administrative procedures used by Federal agencies in carrying out 
their programs. The Assembly will meet in Plenary Session to consider, 
not necessarily in the order stated, proposed recommendations on the 
following subjects:

1. Review of Existing Agency Regulations;
2. Streamlined Processes for Noncontroversial and Emergency Rulemaking;
3. Resolution of Government Contract Bid Protest Disputes;
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution Confidentiality and the Freedom of 
Information Act; and
5. Use of Mediation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    The agenda will also include a forum on innovative approaches to 
resolving workplace conflicts. The forum, scheduled for June 16 
(approximately 10:30 a.m.), will include a presentation by 
commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission describing 
the Commission's new mediation program. A panel of 
[[Page 27714]] commentators will discuss this and other initiatives.

    Plenary sessions are open to the public. All participants with 
special needs and/or who will require assistance should contact Sharon 
D. Anderson or Lavette M. Miller. Further information on the meeting, 
including copies of proposed recomendations, may be obtained from the 
Office of the Chairman, Suite 500, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20037, telephone (202) 254-7020.

    Dated: May 18, 1995.
Jeffrey S. Lubbers,
Research Director.
[FR Doc. 95-12815 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6110-01-W
EXHIBIT
10.39  TITAN
MACHINERY INC.
COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011  The Titan Machinery Inc.
Board of Directors approved the 2011 fiscal year base salaries for the
executive officers as set forth below.  2011 AnnualExecutive Officer and Title
  
  Base SalaryDavid
  J. Meyer
  
  $
  275,000Chairman
  and Chief Executive OfficerPeter
  Christianson
  
  $
  275,000President
  and Chief Financial OfficerTed
  Christianson
  
  $
  170,000Vice
  President, Finance and Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cr-00021-TLS-SLC

)

MONTELL HAIR )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Susan Collins, on

September 15, 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, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, 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 the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that 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;

(3) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and 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 apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that 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 and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 15th day of September, 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1556 Received in Senate (RDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1556

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2006

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate a parcel of land located on the site of the Thomas F. 
   Eagleton United States Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri, as the 
                   ``Clyde S. Cahill Memorial Park''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The parcel of land described in section 3, and located on the site 
of the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse in St. Louis, 
Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ``Clyde S. Cahill 
Memorial Park''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the parcel of land described in section 
3 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clyde S. Cahill Memorial 
Park''.

SEC. 3. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.

    The parcel of land designated under section 1 is the parcel bounded 
by South 10th Street, Clark Avenue, South 9th Street, and Walnut Street 
in St. Louis, Missouri.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                                PROMISSORY NOTE



In consideration of the receipt of two million United States dollars
(U.S.$2,000,000.00) ("Principal"), Maker promises to pay to Holder on 12-31,
2001 ("Due Date") the entire Principal plus interest thereon accrued at the rate
of nine percent (9.0%) per year ("Interest") from the date hereof to the date of
payment (calculated by the actual over 360 method). Maker may prepay this note
in whole or in part at any time or times and such prepayment(s) shall be applied
first to any unpaid interest and then to any unpaid Principal. Maker waives
presentment, notice, waiver and all other defenses and acknowledges that this is
a general recourse obligation of Maker. This Promissory Note shall be subject to
and construed by the laws of California as they apply to obligations made and
performed therein by residents thereof.

DATE:  January 5, 2001

Hyundai Electronics America         ("Maker")


BY: /s/ Thomas J. Thomas
   --------------------------
PRINT:  Thomas J. Thomas
      -----------------------
TITLE:  V.P. Finance/CFO
      -----------------------

Accepted by:

Maxtor Corporation                  ("Holder")


BY:
   --------------------------
PRINT:
      -----------------------
TITLE:
      -----------------------
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1527 

To remove all embargoes on food, medicine, and medical supplies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

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

on International Relations 

A BILL 

To remove all embargoes on food, medicine, and medical 

supplies. 

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 ‘‘Humanitarian Food 

5 and Medicine Export Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 

8 (1) laws or regulations prohibiting the export of 

9 food, medicine, or medical supplies to any foreign 

10 country have a disproportionately negative effect on 

11 the most vulnerable citizens of that country; 
2 

•HR 1527 IH 

1 (2) laws or regulations prohibiting American 

2 manufacturers or farmers from exporting their prod3 ucts represent an unfair restriction on their ability 

4 to engage in voluntary economic activity; 

5 (3) embargoes of food, medicine, or medical 

6 supplies interrupt the discourse between nations and 

7 thus promote further enmity and militarism; and 

8 (4) embargoes of food, medicine, or medical 

9 supplies allow affected foreign leaders to scapegoat 

10 the United States for the failures of their domestic 

11 policy. 

12 SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF EMBARGOES ON FOOD, MEDICINE, OR 

13 MEDICAL SUPPLIES. 

14 Upon the enactment of this Act, any prohibition on 

15 private donations or other exports from the United States 

16 to any other country of food, medicine, or medical supplies 

17 shall cease to be effective, and private donations and other 

18 exports from the United States to any other country of 

19 food, medicine, or medical supplies, that are intended to 

20 meet basic human needs, may not be prohibited. 

21 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

22 In this Act: 

23 (1) FOOD.—The term ‘‘food’’ means any raw, 

24 cooked, processed, or prepared edible substance, ice, 
3 

•HR 1527 IH 

1 or beverage, or ingredient used or intended to be 

2 used for human consumption. 

3 (2) MEDICINE.—The term ‘‘medicine’’ has the 

4 meaning given the term ‘‘drug’’ in section 201 of the 

5 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

6 321). 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-048 JD

)

JACQUELINE RODRIGUEZ )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation upon

a plea of guilty issued on May 10, 2013 [DE 10]. Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those

findings and recommendations, ACCEPTS defendant Jacqueline Rodriguez’s plea of guilty, and

FINDS the defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 30, 2013 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
#### Alvin CARR, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; Les E. Fleming, Warden, FMC-Fort Worth, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-10846.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 11, 2004.

Alvin Carr, Jr., Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Avin Carr, Jr., federal prisoner number 15037-180, appeals, *pro se,*the denial of his § 2241 habeas petition in which he sought credit toward his federal sentence for time spent (while “borrowed” from state custody) in federal custody pursuant to writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Carr contends that the district court relied upon inaccurate facts in denying his petition, complains that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him to file a reply, and asserts that the record does not show that he was given a credit toward his state sentence for the time spent in federal custody.

Carr is not entitled to double credit. Therefore, his complaint that the BOP’s records are inaccurate is without merit, because even if true, Carr would not be eligible for credit toward his federal sentence. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3585; *United States v. Wilson,*503 U.S. 329, 334, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992); Vignera *v. Attorney General of the United States,*455 F.2d 637, 637-38 (5th Cir.1972). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing Carr to file a reply. For Carr’s contention that he should receive state credit for the time spent in federal custody, Carr has not met his initial burden of showing that he did not receive such credit. *See Orman v. Cain,*228 F.3d 616, 619 (5th Cir.2000).

*256Because Carr has not briefed whether the district court erred in dismissing the remainder of his claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, that issue is deemed abandoned. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12641]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,768]


Kelley Oil Corporation Headquartered in Houston, Texas; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    Operating at Various Locations in the Following States:

TA-W-30,768A  New York
TA-W-30,768B  Lousisiana
TA-W-30,768C  Texas (excluding Houston)

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) The Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 30, 1995, applicable to 
all workers of Kelley Oil Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas 
and operating at various locations in New York and Louisiana. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 1995 (60 FR 
20764).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. Findings show that in 
addition to the headquarters in Houston, Kelley Oil Corporation 
operated at various locations within the State of Texas. The Department 
is amending the certification to cover the Kelley Oil workers within 
the State of Texas.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Kelly Oil Corporation who were adversely affected by 
increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,768) is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Kelley Oil Corporation, headquartered in Houston, 
Texas (TA-W-30,768) and operating at various locations in the 
following cited States who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after February 7, 1994 are eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 
1974.

TA-W-30,768A  New York
TA-W-30,768B  Lousiana
TA-W-30,768C  Texas (excluding Houston)

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th day of May 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-12641 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Eddie James PUGH, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 12-9763.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi denied.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,080-01

EX P ARTE ANTHWAUN JORDAN , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 19095-B IN THE 104T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM TAYLOR COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault and sentenc ed to twenty

year s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends that trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We r emande d this application for a

response from trial c ounsel and finding s of fact and conc lusions of law from the trial court. On rema

nd, trial counsel responde d in a sworn aff idavit, and based on that aff idavit, the t ri al co u rt found, among other things, that trial counsel did not reme mber whether Applicant asked him to file an appea l. T he trial court rec ommended that we deny relief

. We agree . Given the2

trial court’ s finding, A

pplicant has not shown that trial c ounsel was de ficient. We r emind trial counsel and the trial court that it is trial counsel’s duty to e nsure notice of appea l is filed with the t rial court. In his aff idavit, tri al counsel stated that hi s file, the record, and his employ

ment contra ct wit h Applicant indi cate d that Applicant was awa re of his right to appea l and that Applicant “nee ded to take action on his own to perf ect that appea l.” This is not c onsistent with this Court’s case law . As we explained in Jones v. State , “I f the defenda nt decide s to appea l, [trial counsel] must ensure that written notice of appea l is filed with the trial court.” Jones v. State , 98 S.W .3d 700, 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Relief is denied.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2019 Do not publish