alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 00-3694/01-2379

___________ Clarice P. Seko, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Boeing/McDonnell Douglas, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 2001 Filed: July 16, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Inthese consolidated appeals, Clarice Seko appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action, and its denial of her motion to stay the award of costs to appellee pending the outcome of this appeal. As relevant to this appeal, Seko alleged that the Boeing Company, formerly McDonnell Douglas Corporation, recalled her in October 1997 during a layoff and then unlawfully placed her on medical leave. She claimed that Boeing’s action violated the Americans-2-

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII, because Boeing ignored her requests for reasonable job accommodations and retaliated against her for filing previous lawsuits. Having conducted a de novo review, see Lloyd v. Hardin County, Iowa , 207 F.3d 1080, 1084 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm. We agree with the District Court that Seko failed to present a prima facie case under the ADA. See Hennenfent v. Mid Dakota Clinic P.C. , 164 F.3d 419, 421-22 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that one element of prima facie ADA case is that employee is qualified to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation). Further, assuming, as did the District Court, that she established a causal connection between the decision to place her on medical leave and her prior lawsuits, she failed to present evidence showing that Boeing’s proffered legitimate nondiscrimina tory reason for placing her on such leave—her inability to return to a job requiring the use of power tools, given her medical condition—was pretextual. See Scroggins v. Univ. of Minn. , 221 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that even if employee established prima facie case of retaliation, he produced no evidence challenging employer’s reason for firing him).
We decline to address the new arguments Seko raises on appeal, see Von Kerssenbrock-Praschma v. Saunders , 121 F.3d 373, 378 (8th Cir. 1997), and we find no abuse of discretion in the Court’s denial of her motion to compel. See In re Mo. Dep’tof Natural Res. , 105 F.3d 434, 435-36 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). Based on our disposition of Seko’s challenge of the adverse grant of summary judgment, the issue as to the propriety of the Court’s denial of her motion to stay is moot. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 99.10

                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                   OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

In compliance with Section 3(a) of the Administration Agreement (the
"Agreement") among Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2004-3, as Issuer, Wilmington Trust
Company, as Delaware Trustee, Zions First National Bank, as Indenture Trustee,
and NELN, Inc. (fka Nelnet, Inc.), as Administrator, dated as of July 1, 2004,
I, Terry J. Heimes, certify that:

     1.   A review of the activities of the Administrator during the period from
          July 28, 2004 to December 31, 2004 and of its performance under this
          Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

     2.   Based on my knowledge of such review, the Administrator has fulfilled
          its obligations in all material respects under this Agreement.


December 31, 2004




By:     /s/ Terry J. Heimes
        ----------------------------------
        Terry J. Heimes
        Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
        and Executive Director,
        NELN, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

NO. DA 21-0360 

ELGIN FABER and COLLEEN FABER, 

 Appellants/Cross-Appellees, 

-vsKEITH RATY, COLLEEN RATY, et al, 

 Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

. 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR COURT REPORTER TO FILE TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL 

 Pursuant to unopposed motion, and good cause appearing; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter, Cindy Prindiville, is 

granted an additional 50 days from November 4, 2021, that is, until December 24, 

2021, to file her transcripts on appeal. 

 DATED _____________________________. 

 ________________________________________

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 8 2021

11/08/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0360
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Rodney Rollins

*Frederick W. Fawcett,*assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*Suzanne Zitser,*assistant public defender, in opposition.

Decided October 25, 1989

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 27, is denied.
#### Albright *et al.*v. Erickson.

No. 2197,

Okla. T.

Opinion Filed May 12, 1909.

(102 Pac. 112.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Abstract Propositions.- Abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow, will not be determined by this court.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from District*Court, *Custer County; F. E.*Gillette, *Judge.*

Application by G. H. Erickson for a liquor license. J. H. Albright and others filed remonstrance.” From a judgment affirming the judgment -granting a license, Albright and others bring error.

Dismissed.

On the 12th day of November, A. D. 1906, G-. H. Erickson filed his application in the effiee of the clerk of Custer county, Okla. Ter., praying to have issued to him a license to sell at retail malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors in the town of Thomas. On the 24th day of November, A. D. 1906, J. H. Albright and others filed with the clerk of said county their remonstrance to the issuance of said license. The matter was heard before the board of county commissioners and the license ordered to be issued. An appeal was taken by the remonstrants to the district court, which affirmed the judgment of the board. Afterwards the *545case was brought by petition in error to the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, and is now, by virtue of the provisions of the Enabling Act and the Schedule to the Constitution, properly before this court for determination.'

*Phillips & Mills,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Nofsinger & Hindi,*for defendant in error.

Williams, J.

(after stating the facts as above)-. Since the appeal was perfected to the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma, said territory has been admitted as a part of the state of Oklahoma, and under the prohibition article of the Constitution (Bunn’s Ed. § 499; Snyder’s Ed. p. 394) a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors is forbidden. Consequently nothing could be availed by a decision of this ease on its merits. It has several times been held by this court that it will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow. *Parker et al. v. Territory ex rel. Bostic,*20 Okla. 851, 94 Pac. 175; *Harmon v. Burt,*20 Okla. 509, 94 Pac. 528; *Freeman v. Board of Medical Examiners,*20 Okla. 610, 95 Pac. 229; *Burkhalter v. Smith,*20 Okla. 625, 95 Pac. 241; *C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Territory,*21 Okla. 329, 97 Pac. 265; *Conly v. Overholzer et al.*22 Okla. 623, 98 Pac. *331; Braun v. Stillwater Advance Ptg.*& *Pub. Co.,*22 Okla. 620, 98 Pac. 426; *Bachman et al. v. Thompson,*22 Okla. 621, 98 Pac. 426; *Powell et al. v. Territory ex rel. Hayes, ante,*p. 406, 100 Pac. 514; *Hodges et al. v. Shafer, ante,*p. 404, 100 Pac. 537.

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

All the Justices concur.
#### PEOPLE, Appellants, v. MILLER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York against William P. Miller.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
|In the office of
Dean Heller
Secretary of State | FILED # C29353 01
Nov 06 2003
In the Office of
Dean Heller, Secretary of State
|----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CERTIFICATE OF FORWARD STOCK SPLIT
FOR
ALTUS EXPLORATION INC.

The undersigned Secretary and Director of ALTUS EXPLORATION INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies for the purposes of Nevada Revised Statute 78.209 as follows:

1. The Board of Directors of the Corporation has unanimously approved, by written consent, dated October 29th, 2003, eight (8) for one (1) forward stock split (the "Forward Stock Split") of the Corporation's authorized, issued and outstanding common stock.
2. The total authorized number of shares of the Corporation before the effective date of the Forward Stock Split was Twenty-Five Million (25,000,000) shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001.
3. The total authorized number of shares after the effective date of the Forward Stock Split shall be Two Hundred Million (200,000,000) shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001.
4. The Corporation shall issue eight (8) shares of common stock in exchange for every one (1) share of common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective date of the Forward Stock Split.
5. The approval of the stockholders of the Corporation is not required to effect the Forward Stock Split.
6. The Forward Stock Split shall be effective on the date that this Certificate is filed with the Nevada Secretary of State.

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2003.

|/s/ Andrew Stewart	ANDREW STEWART
SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR
|--------------------------------------------------------

This instrument was acknowledged before me on November 3, 2003, by ANDREW STEWART, known or proved to be the person executing the above instrument.

/s/ William L. Macdonald	
WILLIAM L. MACDONALD
A Notary Public in and for the Province of British Columbia

|WILLIAM L. MacDONALD
Barrister & Solicitor
800-885 WEST GEORGIA STREET
VANCOUVER, B.C. V6C 3H1
TELEPHONE (604) 687-5700
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 127573 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 127573 COA: 250581 Kent CC: 02-010334-FC GORDON MARTIN LYONS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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.

September 28, 2005

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





The
undersigned, Donald Neal, President, Director,  President, Chief
Executive and Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of American Goldfields
Inc. (the “Company”) certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the year ended January 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and  results  of
operations of the Company.











Dated:
April 28, 2008





By: /s/ Donald
Neal


Name:
Donald Neal


Title:
Director, President, Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary


(Principal
Executive, Financial & Accounting Officer)








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

----

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForm S-3 (No. 333-139417) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-143373 and333-141576) of ULURU Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2009 relating to thefinancial statements which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofULURU Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30,2009.

|                                                                  |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Lane Gorman Trubitt, L.L.P.                                  |   |   |
| Lane      Gorman Trubitt, L.L.P.Dallas,      TexasMarch      30, 2009 |   |   |

----
### Ashley**Yount From:** **Sent: To:** **Subject: Mark** **Adams Court** **of Criminal** **Appeals <mark.adams@cca.courts.state.tx.us>** **Wednesday, August** **21, 2013** **9:02 AM** **coal2notices Notice** **from Court** **of Criminal** **Appeals, ,;** 

### Wednesday,**August 21,** **2013 Re:** **Case No.** **PD-0700-13 COA#:** **12-11-00250-CR, TC#** **29995 STYLE:** **LOMAX, MICHAEL** **ODELL**

### On**this day,** **the Appellant's** **petition for** **discretionary review** **has been** **refused. Abel** **Acosta, Clerk**
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35535-35536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Partial Consent Decree in United States v. 
Paul Bunn, et al., Civil Action No. 9:20-cv-00107-DLC-KLD, was lodged 
with the United States District Court for the District of Montana on 
June 29, 2021.
    This proposed Partial Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by 
the United States against Paul Bunn, pursuant to Section 309 of the 
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319, to obtain injunctive relief and impose 
civil penalties against Mr. Bunn for violating the Clean Water Act by 
discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United 
States. The proposed Partial Consent Decree resolves these allegations 
by requiring Mr. Bunn to restore the impacted areas and to pay a civil 
penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Partial Consent Decree for

[[Page 35536]]

thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please 
address comments to Alan Greenberg, United States Department of 
Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental 
Defense Section, 999 18th Street, Suite 370, Denver, CO 80202, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4636332425292b2b23283219232235682328342206333522292c68212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d5d584f4e4240404843597248495e0348435f496d585e494247034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>, and refer to United States v. Paul Bunn, 
et al., DJ # 90-5-1-1-20880.
    The proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's 
Office, United States District Court for the District of Montana, 
Russell Smith Federal Courthouse, 201 East Broadway, Missoula, MT 
59802. In addition, the proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined 
electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.

Cherie Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-14353 Filed 7-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2285 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2285

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags for toys.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain bags for toys.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN BAGS FOR TOYS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.78 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DOMINIQUE DESEAN HELMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-391

[October 15, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312012CF000982B.

Dominique Desean Helms, Lowell, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 128 (Thursday, July 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Communications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer 
Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This 
meeting will still be held via teleconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conchata Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 
336-690-6217.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications 
Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 10, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. 
Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure 
of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with 
Conchata Holloway. For more information please contact Conchata 
Holloway at 1-888-912-1227 or 336-690-6217, or write TAP Office, 4905 
Koger Boulevard, Greensboro, NC 27407-2734 or contact us at the 
website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include various IRS 
issues.

    Dated: July 1, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-14512 Filed 7-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### ZIMMERMAN, Respondent, v. ZIMMERMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

*1151Action by Annie Zimmerman against Adam Zimmerman. L. Wendel, Jr., for appellant. F. I. Tierney, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### Alvin Kadan et al., Appellants, v Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bertram Z. Kadan, Respondent.

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Williams, J.),. entered May 31, 1984 in Albany County, which granted defendant Bertram Z. Kadan’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion to excuse them for failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion.

On June 28,1980, plaintiff Alvin Kadan was allegedly injured in a one-car accident while he was a passenger in a Volkswagen Rabbit operated by defendant Bertram Z. Kadan (hereinafter defendant). This personal injury action ensued. In due course, defendant answered and served a demand for a bill of particulars. When the bill of particulars was not received within the time required by CPLR 3042 (a), defendant moved for an order of preclusion. Special Term granted a 20-day conditional order of preclusion, which order was served on December 13, 1983. Plaintiffs served their bill of particulars on January 18, 1984, some 11 days after the 20-day period. The service of the bill of particulars crossed in the mail with defendant’s notice of motion, dated January 16,1984, seeking summary judgment based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the preclusion order. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and requested that their 11-day delay be excused.

*541Special Term denied plaintiffs’ request to excuse their failure to comply with the preclusion order, finding that plaintiffs’ arguments were “less than compelling”. Accordingly, Special Term granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him. Plaintiffs then took this appeal.

After conducting a review of the record, we reverse upon the condition that, within 20 days after entry of the order to be made herein, plaintiffs’ attorney personally pay $500 costs to defendant in addition to the costs of this appeal. The papers submitted by plaintiffs were sufficient to excuse the brief delay caused by law office failure *(see,*CPLR 2004, 2005; *Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp.,*46 AD2d 806; Siegel, NY Prac § 241, at 296-297 [1978]). We note that on this appeal, defendant for the first time asserts that the bill of particulars in question was not verified. However, having failed to raise this contention before Special Term, defendant has waived the argument.

Order reversed, on the facts, with costs to defendant Bertram Z. Kadan, motion denied and cross motion to excuse plaintiffs’ default granted upon condition that plaintiffs’ attorney pay $500 costs to defendant Bertram Z. Kadan’s attorneys within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered upon this decision with notice of entry. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.