alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40459

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, JOSHUA HARMAN

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRINITY HIGHWAY 

PRODUCTS, L.L.C.,

Defendants - Appellees

v.

THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY; THE SAFETY INSTITUTE, 

INCORPORATED,

Movants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CV-89

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40459 Document: 00513263835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2015
No. 15-40459

Appellants The Center for Auto Safety and The Safety Institute, Inc. 

appeal the district court’s denial of their second motion to intervene. As 

explained in our decision affirming the denial of their first motion to 

intervene,1 Appellants seek to intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing 

the record. The district court concluded that Appellants’ motion was moot 

because it had already granted Relator Joshua Harman’s motion to unseal the 

record. Appellants counter that their motion is not moot because the district 

court’s order granting this relief was neither final nor unappealable—and has 

been appealed by Appellees Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway 

Products, L.L.C. Assuming without deciding that Appellants are correct, the 

district court’s order has since become final and unappealable, as this Court 

recently granted Appellees’ motion to voluntary dismiss their interlocutory 

appeal of the unsealing order.2 As a result, Appellants’ second motion to 

intervene is now indisputably moot,3 and we DISMISS this appeal.

 

1 See United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 599 F. App’x 193, 193 (5th 

Cir. 2015).

2 No. 15-40337, Dkt. 83.

3 Jackson v. Johnson, 217 F.3d 360, 364-65 & n.20 (5th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that a 

“case becomes moot on appeal once appellant has received all of the relief requested”).

 Case: 15-40459 Document: 00513263835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

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.

 July 1, 2015

s0624p

Order 

Clerk

July 1, 2015

151199

_________________________________________

SC: 151199

In re COH, ERH, JRG, and KBH, Minors. COA: 312691

Muskegon CC Family Division:

2011-007780-AF;

2011-007781-AF;

2011-007782-AF;

2011-007783-AF

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2014 

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.
Exhibit 10.4
​

SECOND AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 
This Second Amendment to Real Estate Purchase and Sale (this "Amendment") is made effective as of May 27, 2021 by and between Stoneridge, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Seller”) and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, a Canadian corporation (“Buyer”).    
Seller and Buyer are parties to that certain Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement with an Effective Date of May 7, 2021, as amended by a First Amendment to Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 20, 2021 (as so amended, the "Agreement of Sale”), pursuant to which Buyer agreed to acquire from Seller certain real property known as 300 Dan Road, Canton, Massachusetts, as more particularly described in the Agreement of Sale.  Seller and Buyer now desire to amend the Agreement of Sale.  
Now therefore, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Buyer hereby agree to amend the Agreement of Sale as follows:
1.Study Period.  Section 1.20 of the Agreement of Sale is hereby amended to delete the date “May 27th, 2021” and to insert in place thereof the date “June 10th, 2021.”  
2.Miscellaneous.  As amended hereby, the Agreement of Sale remains in full force and effect.  In the event of conflict between the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Sale and the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall prevail and control.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Amendment by Docu-Sign or PDF by email shall be as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Agreement.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
​

​



​

​
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first set forth above.
BUYER:
​
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
​
By: BentallGreenOak (U.S.) Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, its general partner
​
By: BentallGreenOak (U.S.) GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its general partner
​
By: /s/ Kevin Rivest​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Name: Kevin Rivest​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Title: Managing Director​ ​​ ​
​
​
By: /s/ Kevin Yen​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Name: Kevin Yen​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Title: Vice President​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
​
SELLER:
​
STONERIDGE, INC.
​
By: /s/ Matt Horvath​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Name: Matt Horvath​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Title: Exec. Dir. Corp Strategy​ ​

​
# Official Journal L 239/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.239.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 239 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 555 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.239.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 239

English edition

Legislation

Volume 555 September 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 798/2012 of 4 September 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/492/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 3 September 2012 amending Decision 2000/96/EC as regards tick-borne encephalitis and the category of vector-borne communicable diseases
  (notified under document C(2012) 3241)

   (1) | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 798/2012 of 4 September 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

DECISIONS

2012/492/EU

*

Commission Decision of 3 September 2012 amending Decision 2000/96/EC as regards tick-borne encephalitis and the category of vector-borne communicable diseases
  (notified under document C(2012) 3241)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2012) 3241)

3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
----

            COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2006/18/EC

of 14 February 2006         

amending Directive 77/388/EEC with regard to reduced rates of value added tax

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 93 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 77/388/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall be applicable as from 1 January 2006.

Article 3

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 February 2006.

For the Council

The President

K.-H. GRASSER            

----

(1)OJ C 89 E, 14.4.2004, p. 138.

(2)OJ C 32, 5.2.2004, p. 113.

(3)OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2005/92/EC (OJ L 345, 28.12.2005, p. 19).

----
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
 Biological Control of Insects Research: Columbia, MO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbia, Missouri Biological Control of Insects Research People & Locations







Gordon S Harper
                        Biological Control of Insects Research

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Worker
                        Phone: (573) 882-5840
                        
                        
                        Fax: (573) 882-0060(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### Hayes *et al. v.*Farmers Bank.

Beck, J.

*1.*In a suit based upon a promissory note,.where the defendant pleaded that he had directed the application of funds arising from the collection of certain collateral securities alleged to have been left by him in the hands of the plaintiff, it was competent for the defendant, after the introduction in evidence of a certain writing signed by him, which purported to put the title to these collateral securities in the plaintiff, to introduce evidence to show that while he did sign this writing he did so at a time when he was hurrying to catch a train, that he *184did not have time to read over the writing, but signed it upon the statement of the agent of the plaintiff that the drafts he was then handing to the defendant were the property of the bank, and that the paper presented for defendant to sign was a receipt to show where the drafts went. If in an emergency he was induced, by the statement of the plaintiff’s agent, to sign the paper which contained an acknowledgment that the securities referred to belonged to the plaintiff, he will not be precluded from proving this on the idea that he can not contradict the writing by parol evidence. If his signature to the paper was procured under the circumstances which he offered to prove, it was a fraud, and he should have been permitted to show it.

February 11, 1915.

Complaint. Before Joseph N. ’Worlej’, judge pro liac vice. Franklin superior court. September 29, 1913.

*W. B. Little*and *Adams & Jolmson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Dorough & Adams*and *A. Q. & Julian McCurry,*contra.

2. It was error for the court, referring to the paper just mentioned, to say, in the presence of the jury, “Suppose he did not have time — he signed it, didn’t he?”

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 1 of 30 PageID #:212
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 2 of 30 PageID #:213
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 3 of 30 PageID #:214
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 4 of 30 PageID #:215
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 5 of 30 PageID #:216
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 6 of 30 PageID #:217
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 7 of 30 PageID #:218
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 8 of 30 PageID #:219
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 9 of 30 PageID #:220
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 10 of 30 PageID #:221
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 11 of 30 PageID #:222
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 12 of 30 PageID #:223
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 13 of 30 PageID #:224
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 14 of 30 PageID #:225
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 15 of 30 PageID #:226
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 16 of 30 PageID #:227
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 17 of 30 PageID #:228
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 18 of 30 PageID #:229
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 19 of 30 PageID #:230
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 20 of 30 PageID #:231
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 21 of 30 PageID #:232
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 22 of 30 PageID #:233
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 23 of 30 PageID #:234
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 24 of 30 PageID #:235
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 25 of 30 PageID #:236
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 26 of 30 PageID #:237
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 27 of 30 PageID #:238
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 28 of 30 PageID #:239
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 29 of 30 PageID #:240
Case: 1:01-cv-09479 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/16/02 Page 30 of 30 PageID #:241
#### White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Peterson *et al.*

No. 102.

Opinion Filed March 9, 1909.

(100 Pac. 513.)

CORPORATIONS — Action by Foreign Corporation — Petition. A foreign corporation need not allege due compliance with the laws of Oklahoma as respects doing business in the state, and the petition if otherwise sufficient is not subject to demurrer.

(Sjdlabus by the Court.)

*362
      *Error from District Court, Washington County; T. L. Brown, Judge.*

Action by the White Sewing Machine Company against R. Peterson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

*John E. Palmer,*for plaintiff in error.

Kane, C. J.

This was an action on an indemnity bond, brought by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, in the district court of Washington county, Okla. The petition alleged that the plaintiff was a corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, but did not allege due compliance with the laws of Indian Territory as respects foreign corporations doing business therein. The court below sustained a general demurrer to the first paragraph of the petition, and thereupon entered the following order, which states the grounds upon which the demurrer was sustained :

> “It is the judgment of the court that, insomuch as said petition does not allege due compliance with the laws of Indian Territory as respects foreign corporations doing business therein, said demurrer be, and the same is hereby, sustained as to the first count as not-stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”

We do not believe this was a good ground for sustaining the demurrer. A foreign corporation need not allege the performance of statutory conditions precedent. 10 Cyc. 1351, 1352; *South Yuba Water, etc., Co. v. Rosa,*80 Cal. 333, 22 Pac. 222; *Ontario State Bank v. Tibbits et al.,*80 Cal. 68, 22 Pac. 66. It has been held by the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma in a long line of cases that a foreign corporation need not allege due compliance with the laws of Oklahoma as respects doing-business in the state, and the petition, if otherwise sufficient, is not subject to demurrer. *Keokuk Falls Improvement Co. et al. v. Kingsland, etc., Mfg. Co.,*5 Okla. 32, 47 Pac. 484. The general rule seems to be that a petition in an action by a foreign corporation need not set forth that the corporation has complied with the domestic laws authorizing it to do business, and that *363failure to do so is matter of defense, to be pleaded and proved by the defendant. *Nickles v. People's Building, Loan & Saving Association,*93 Va. 380, 25 S. E. 8.

The judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to take such further action as may be necessary not inconsistent with this opinion.

All the Justices concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23



               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-07331) pertaining to the Applied Microsystems Corporation 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-03396) pertaining to the Applied Microsystems Corporation 1990 Stock Benefit
Plan, the Applied Microsystems Corporation 1992 Performance Stock Plan, and the
Applied Microsystems Corporation Director Stock Option Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-14823) pertaining to the Applied Microsystems
Corporation 1992 Performance Stock Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-52164) pertaining to the Applied Microsystems Corporation 1992
Performance Stock Plan, the 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the
Nonqualified Stock Option Grant to Stephen J. Verleye, and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-69184) pertaining to the Applied Microsystems
Corporation 2001 Stock Option Plan and the Applied Microsystems Corporation
Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 1, 2002 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Applied Microsystems
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP





Seattle, Washington
March 27, 2002
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Sean F. Moran, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sontra Medical Corporation; 

 

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 tomake 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

**Date: August 9, 2005**
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ZALZAR FZE, Appellant

v.

DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, Appellee

______________________

2020

- 2256

______________________Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in No s . 59616, 60053, 60054, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty, Administrative Judge Alexander Younger, Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

P AUL D. H ENDERSON , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by K RISTIN T AHLER , Los Angeles, CA.

D ANIEL B. V OLK , Commercial Litigation Branch, CivilDivision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by B RIAN Case: 20-2256 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 07/21/2021M. B OYNTON , M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R ., R OBERT E DWAR D K IRSCHMAN , J R

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , P ROST , and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 21, 2021 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Chief Deputy Clerk Case: 20-2256 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 07/21/2021