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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

GREGORY P. SPATA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:13-CV-490-PRC

)

NAPLETON AUTO WERKS OF )

INDIANA, INC., )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 16], filed

on January 14, 2015. Defendant also filed a Local Rule 37-1 certification that it had conferred in

good faith with Plaintiff’s counsel in an attempt to resolve this dispute without court action. Plaintiff

has not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed.

This is a wrongful termination suit brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The

case is currently in the discovery phase. Defendant represents that on September 8, 2014, it served

Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Requests for Production as part of its attempt to determine the basis

of Plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination. Plaintiff has not served Defendant with the

requested discovery materials.

Over the last few months, Defendant represents that it has contacted Plaintiff’s attorney,

Michael Rappa, a number of times in an attempt to get the past-due discovery materials without

court action. Most recently, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that responses would be provided by

December 19, 2014. That date came and went without Plaintiff taking any action. Defendant now

asks that the Court order Plaintiff to serve it with responses to its Interrogatories and Requests for

Production within seven days of this Court’s Order on the motion. 

The matter is well taken. Plaintiff has failed to provide timely discovery responses and has
not responded to this motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s

Motion to Compel Discovery [DE 16] and ORDERS Plaintiff to serve Defendant with Answers to

Defendant’s Interrogatories and Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production by February 13,

2015.

The Motion does not ask for attorney fees. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37

states that, under most circumstances, fees and costs must be awarded to the prevailing party. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). There are a few exceptions to this rule, and the Court may only award fees after

the losing side has had an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Id. The Court therefore sets this

matter for further briefing. Any objection to the award of attorney fees incurred by Defendant in the

litigation of this motion must be filed by February 13, 2015. Any response must be filed by February

23, 2015. 

SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2015.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Paul
R. Sohmer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of BG Medicine, Inc.; and

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.

Date: April 29, 2016



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul R. Sohmer                   
|Paul R. Sohmer, M.D.                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(principal executive officer)
incapacitated for work to be deemed permanently and totally disabled if

they are "so handicapped that they will not be regularly employed in any well-known branch of the labor market." Ranieri v. Catholic Cmty. Servs., 111 Nev. 1057, 1062, 901 P.2d 158, 161 (1995); see also NRS 616C.435(2). Factors to be considered in applying the odd-lot doctrine include the worker's age, experience, training, and education. Ranieri, 111 Nev. at 1062, 901 P.2d at 161.

Here, the appeals officer considered the evidence presented by the parties in light of those factors, including evidence that Burtrand's transferable skills could not be used in the workplace due to her inability to sit, stand, and walk without pain. The appeals officer found Burtrand's testimony credible and also specifically relied on three medical reports: that of Dr. Wendell Burris, Burtrand's personal physician; that of Dr. Robin Genereaux, a vocational rehabilitation counselor; and that of Dr. Mark Rosin, who performed an independent medical examination on Burtrand. Each of these reports supports the appeals officer's findings. See Westin Hotel v. Indus. Comm'n of Ill., 865 N.E.2d 342, 357-58 (Ill App. Ct. 2007) (recognizing that evidence from both a rehabilitation services provider or a vocational counselor and medical doctors support a PTD finding under the odd-lot doctrine). Further, after the district court remanded for the appeals officer to clarify whether Burtrand was precluded from working in the competitive labor market at large or merely in her former position at Metro, the appeals officer expressly found that, based on the reports and Burtrand's physical limitations, she could not return to "working in the competitive labor market at large," warranting a PTD finding under the odd-lot doctrine.

SUPREME COURT OF 2
NEVADA

(0) 1947A 41ffejirWhile the record contains conflicting evidence regarding

appellant's ability to work, this court will not reweigh the evidence or replace the appeals officer's judgment as between two reasonable but conflicting views. 

### See NRS 233B.135; 

### Nellis Motors v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 124 Nev. 1263, 1269-70, 197 P.3d 1061, 1066 (2008) (explaining that this court will not reweigh the evidence, reassess witness credibility, or substituteS our judgment for that of the appeals officer on questions of fact). The appeals officer applied the correct legal standard and substantial evidence supports the appeals officer's determination that Burtrand qualifies for PTD benefits under the odd-lot doctrine. 

### See Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 & n.4, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 & n.4 (2008) (noting that the appeals officer's decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequately supporting a conclusion). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Richard A. Harris, Settlement Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 3

(0) 1947A 

## e
Order entered November 26, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01205-CV

JALIA STEPHENS, Appellant

V.

ROSELAND ESTATES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-03495-D

ORDER

By postcard dated November 19, 2014, we advised Appellant that the reporter’s record in 

the above case is overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within 30 days of the 

date of the notice. The court reporter has now advised us that no party has contacted her to 

request the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Appellant to file within ten days of the 

date of this order (1) notice that Appellant has requested preparation of the reporter’s record; 

and, (2) written verification that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s 

fee or written documentation that appellant has been found to be entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. We notify appellant that if we receive verification that no request for the 

record has been made as required by this order or that she has not paid for or made 
arrangements to pay for the record as required by this order, we will order the appeal submitted 

without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order, by electronic 

transmission, to all parties and to Cora L. Hough, Official Court Reporter of County Court at 

Law No. 4 and to the Honorable Ken Tapscott, Presiding Judge of Dallas County Court at Law. 

No. 4. 

 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,535,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,613,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,535,543
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,613,522
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,553,925
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,535,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
Robert F. PACHECO, petitioner, v. Gary RODEN, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk.

No. 12-9778.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sierra Ventures, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I,
Ian Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: October 20, 2008

/s/         Ian
Jackson

Ian Jackson Chief Executive Officer

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DUANE LEE FREY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 96 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DUANE LEE FREY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 97 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of August, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Universal American Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert A. Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.

Date: December 23, 2003

                                                      /s/ Robert A. Waegelein
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Robert A. Waegelein
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

                                       36
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10106

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LAMONDRICK JOHNSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-55-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Lamondrick Johnson has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Johnson has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
**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 ofAXCESS International Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “***Report***”),I, Allan Griebenow, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

                (1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as applicable; and

 

                (2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

 

 

/S/ ALLAN GRIEBENOW   

Allan Griebenow

President, Chief Executive Officer andPrincipal Executive Officer

 

Dated: August 13, 2003

 

 

----
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Silver Spring, MD 20993 

April 14, 2016 

Riad Mishlawi, EU Vice President and Global Head of Injectables 

Eurohealth International Sàrl, a subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals 

Estrada do Rio da Mó, 8, 8A e 8B - Fervença 

Sintra, Portugal 

2705-906 

Dear Mr. Mishlawi: 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is pleased to announce that Eurohealth, a subsidiary of 

Hikma Pharmaceuticals (Eurohealth) has been selected to receive a Drug Shortage Assistance Award for 

its role in preventing or alleviating drug shortages. 

Eurohealth is being recognized for its efforts related to the shortages of thiotepa for injection and 

phentolamine mesylate for injection, including acquiring the new drug applications and submitting postapproval supplements to restart manufacturing with acceptable compliance records. 

FDA established this award program to recognize companies for making a substantial contribution to 

preventing or alleviating a drug shortage. FDA hopes this award serves as an incentive for other 

companies to assist in addressing drug shortages, as Eurohealth has. 

The intent of the award program is to bring attention to manufacturers or companies that assist in 

addressing a drug shortage and prioritize quality manufacturing, a key component of the Strategic Plan 

for Preventing and Mitigating Drug Shortages. More information on the strategic plan can be found on 

FDA’s drug shortages web page (http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/drugshortages/default.htm). 

FDA thanks Eurohealth for working to alleviate the shortages of thiotepa and phentolamine mesylate for 

injections. The enclosed press release/web statement template is provided to assist you in publicizing your 

award from FDA. 

Sincerely,
 

Douglas C. Throckmorton, M.D. 

 Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Programs, 

 FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 

Enclosure: 

Certificate
case 2:13-cv-00085-JVB-PRC   document 5    filed 03/05/13   page 1 of 1
Gerardo MARTINEZ-SEGURA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4762

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 13, 2019

Gerardo Martinez-Segura, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Gerardo Martinez-Segura appeals an order summarily denying his rule 3.850 motion. Consistent with the State's concession, we reverse in part. The trial court erred in summarily denying as to grounds four and five, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's advice (or lack of advice) regarding the deportation consequences of Martinez-Segura's plea. On remand, the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting these allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing. As to the remaining grounds, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6411

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT GARFIELD MCKEITHAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-91-106-R, CA-95-851)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Garfield McKeithan, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville

Douglass, Robert William Jaspen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. McKeithan, Nos. CR-91-106-

R; CA-95-851 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 1996). 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
Otis HARRIS, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-6111.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[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: 95-12181]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 040795A]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Public Hearing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of additional public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: On April 18, 1995, NMFS published a notice of availability of 
a proposed recovery plan for Snake River salmon protected by the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, eleven public hearings were 
announced. NMFS is announcing one additional public hearing.

DATES: The public hearing is scheduled as follows:
    June 21, 1995, 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., Idaho Falls, ID.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the following location:
    Idaho Falls--Center for Higher Education Bldg., 1776 Science Center 
Drive, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Jones, Recovery Plan 
Coordinator, Environmental and Technical Services Division, NMFS, (503) 
230-5400.

    Dated: May 11, 1995.
Patricia A. Montanio,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-12181 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Order entered January 6, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00486

- CR

JOSE MAYA, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 12

- 34710

- T



### O RDER
Appellant’s December 31, 2014 motion to accept the brief tendered is GRANTED

. Appellant’s brief received by the Clerk of the Court on December 31, 2014 is DEEMED timely

filed on the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE