alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Environmental Microbial & Food Safety Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About Us
                        Mission, Facilities, and Expertise
                                    Five Appropriated Projects
                                    Research Staff (by project group)Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Sensing Technologiesheadline bar SensingOverview
               Patents


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000388

04-JUN-2015

10:53 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6825 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-7102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
- 2 -

versus

HOWARD CHARLES HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:93-cr-00156)

Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

After the district court granted Howard Charles Hudson’s

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and reduced his sentence from

life in prison to 360 months, Hudson filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a)

motion asserting that district court should have applied the

Sentencing Guidelines as advisory under United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005), and that his sentence should have been based

on an offense level of twelve due to the drug quantity stated in

the indictment. The district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion

and also denied Hudson’s motion for reconsideration of that order.

He now appeals from the orders granting his motion for a reduction

in sentence, denying his Rule 35(a) motion, and denying his motion

for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record on appeal and

find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Hudson, No. 2:93-cr-00156 (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2007 &

entered May 17, 2006; June 6, 2007; filed June 27, 2007 & entered

June 28, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### David FERRELL, Appellant, v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Byus, Project Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Wendy Kelly, Chief Deputy, Arkansas Department of Correction; Charlotte Green, Infirmary Manager, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Rita Odom; Nnamdi Ifediora, Dr., Varner Unit, ADC; M. Austin, Infirmary Manager, Cummins Unit, ADC; Em Ward, Dr., Cummins Unit, ADC; Arlene Moskovich, Dr., Cummins Unit, ADC, Appellees.

No. 11-2672.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2011.

Filed: Dec. 12, 2011.

David Ferrell, Grady, AR, pro se.

Ali Brady, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Michelle Banks Odum, Humphries & Lewis, White Hall, AR, for Appellees.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Inmate David Ferrell appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. To the extent he has not waived his claims against the Arkansas Depart*400ment of Correction (ADC) defendants by failing to address those claims on appeal with any specificity, *see Meyers v. Starke,*420 F.3d 738, 743 (8th Cir.2005), we agree with the court that Ferrell failed to offer evidence that he administratively exhausted the claims, *see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr.,*598 F.3d 1051, 1052-53 & n. 2 (8th Cir.) (reviewing de novo district court’s interpretation of Prison Litigation Reform Act’s administrative exhaustion provision; inmate must complete administrative review in accordance with applicable rules before bringing suit in federal court), *cert.*denied; -U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 499, 178 L.Ed.2d 296 (2010).

As to the Correctional Medical Services (CMS) defendants, we agree with the district court that those claims are based on Ferrell’s unsupported disagreement with medical treatment decisions, and that he did not adequately counter the CMS defendants’ evidence as to the appropriate treatment for his Hepatitis C and inguinal hernia. *See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs. Inc.,*559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir.2009) (summary judgment standard of review); *Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees,*487 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (8th Cir.2007) (mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or course of treatment does not amount to constitutional violation); *see also Bloom v. Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, Inc.,*440 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (8th Cir.2006) (speculation and conjecture are insufficient to defeat summary judgment).2 The district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

. Contrary to Ferrell’s assertions, he cannot base a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim on alleged violations of workers' compensation laws or breach of contract. *See C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347,*591 F.3d 624, 633 n. 10 (8th Cir.2010).
Exhibit
      32.1






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr.
      Ramesh Zacharias Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





Dated:
      March 1,
      2006





By:
            /s/
                Dr.
                Ramesh ZachariasName:
                Dr. Ramesh ZachariasTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
#### Shoshana Fischer, Respondent, v J oseph Fischer, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gabel, J.), entered January 20, 1984, which designated the plaintiff *26wife as receiver of certain properties and fixed her undertaking, designated a bank depository, and expanded the list of properties as to which the receiver could take and receive mortgage payments, modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to provide for the appointment by the court of an independent coreceiver, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this hotly disputed matrimonial matter involving custody of three children and actions both in Israel and in this jurisdiction, the wife was appointed receiver as to the husband’s interest in properties in Brooklyn, Queens, Monsey, New York, and Jerusalem. In view of the internecine struggle, it is not fitting for the wife to be the sole receiver, and an independent coreceiver should also be appointed. It is also not appropriate for one judge to be burdened with the various and continuing aspects of this controversy, and it is more appropriate that the Judge now currently sitting in Part V receive any further applications or submissions of issues.

We have reviewed the other points raised by the husband, including the question of subject matter jurisdiction, and find them without merit. The court had jurisdiction of the subject matter without regard to the husband’s stipulation. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Bloom, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2226 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2226

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain ethylene-vinyl acetate 
                              copolymers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2005

   Ms. Hart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain ethylene-vinyl acetate 
                              copolymers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ETHYLENE-VINYL ACETATE COPOLYMERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following:

``      9902.07.54       Ethylene-vinyl     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         acetate                                                            31/2009
                         copolymers
                         containing 50% by
                         weight vinyl
                         acetate monomer
                         content (CAS No.
                         24937-78-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3905.29.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
      consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 1999 and the consolidated
      statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999 
<CASH>                                                16,817 
<SECURITIES>                                               0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,015 
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0 
<INVENTORY>                                            1,155 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      20,428 
<PP&E>                                               118,127 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (25,734)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       168,227 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 30,051 
<BONDS>                                                    0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 38,034 
<PREFERRED>                                           21,249 
<COMMON>                                                   1 
<OTHER-SE>                                           (24,268)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         168,227 
<SALES>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      36,139 
<CGS>                                                      0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         33,402 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,918 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          819 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             395 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      424 
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0 
<CHANGES>                                                  0 
<NET-INCOME>                                             424 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0 
                                                             


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AVATEX CORPORATION FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          43,065
<SECURITIES>                                     3,493
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                       131
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,891
<PP&E>                                          30,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,698
<BONDS>                                         28,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          208,364
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,032
<OTHER-SE>                                   (221,985)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,180
<SALES>                                          9,797
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,797
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (97,669)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (97,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,719
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (93,988)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (8.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.18)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David G. Fiore, President and Chief Executive Officer of American
Achievement Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that: (1) The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended August 28,
2004 (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 results of operations of the Company as
of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. Date: November 4, 2004 /s/ DAVID G. FIOREName: David G. FioreTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JACKLYN WARE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 644

LT Case No. 2019

- CF

- 001952

- A

- X

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Decision filed May 16, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County

, Daniel B. Merritt, Jr. , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Steven N. Gosney, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashl ey Moddy, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock

McG uigan , Ass istant Attor ney General, Daytona B each, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS

, JAY and BOATWRIGHT , JJ., concur.
Cite as 2022 Ark. 192



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION Opinion Delivered: October 27, 2022

PER CURIAM The Honorable Kim Bridgforth, State District Judge, of Pine Bluff is reappointed to the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission for a three

- year term to expire on October 15,
2025.
The Honorable Carlton D. Jones, Circuit Judge, of Texarkana is reappointed to the
Arkans as Access to Justice Commission for a three

- year term to expire on October 15, 2025.
The Honorable Adam Weeks , Circuit Judge, of Walnut Ridge is reappointed to the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission for a three

- year term to expire on October 15, 2025.
W e thank Judge Bridgforth, Judge Jones, and Judge Weeks for accepting reappointment to this important commission.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

June 14, 2013

146458 & (63)

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 146458

COA: 306860

Kent CC: 2010-006430-CK

TAX CONNECTION WORLDWIDE, LLC,

JOHN R. BEASON, TAX CONNECTION

WORLD, and JACKSON’S FIVE STAR

CATERING, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2012 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

Jackson’s Five Star Catering, Inc., brought an action against Tax Connection 

Worldwide, LLC, arguing that the latter violated the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 USC 227, when it faxed an unsolicited advertisement to the former. AutoOwners Insurance Company brought this action seeking a declaration that it has no duty 

to defend, but its arguments were rejected by the trial court, and the Court of Appeals 

affirmed. 

The policy at issue here covers an “advertising injury”—an “injury arising out of 

one or more of the following offenses”—with Tax Connection asserting that (b) 

specifically is at issue: 

a. Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a 

person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, 

products or services;
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 14, 2013

s0611

2

Clerk

b. Oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s 

right of privacy; 

c. Misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business; 

or

d. Infringement of copyright, title or slogan. [Emphasis added.] 

I agree with Auto-Owners that it is unreasonable to conclude that the faxing of an 

unsolicited advertisement can be said to “violate[] a person’s right of privacy.” First, it is 

clear that subparts (a), (c), and (d) of the policy all refer to the substantive content of 

what was faxed and that (b) should also be construed as referring to the substantive 

content of what was faxed. Second, Tax Connection’s interpretation of “right of privacy” 

is inconsistent with the traditional meaning of that term in the tort context, in which an 

invasion of privacy generally refers to the publication of private or confidential 

information concerning an individual. See, e.g., Dalley v Dykema Gossett PLLC, 287 

Mich App 296, 306 (2010). It is undisputed that the substantive content of the fax at 

issue here did not implicate any such information. For these reasons, I would reverse the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals.