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
 Eastern Regional Research Center: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Kenneth  Todd
                        Office of The Director

                        




                        
                        Mechanical Engineer
                        Phone: (215) 836-3771
                        
                        
                        Fax: (215) 233-6406(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
#### In the Matter of Michael Lynn BALDWIN, Bankrupt.

No. BK72-0-948.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.

June 14, 1973.

Charles Ledwith, Omaha, Neb., for Michael Lynn Baldwin.

Jon J. Gergen, Omaha, Neb., for Nancy Linda Baldwin.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENNEY, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon petition to review an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy [Filing #25].

Michael Lynn Baldwin and Nancy Linda Baldwin were husband and wife until January 3, 1972, when, on that date, a decree of divorce was entered by the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. As part of the decree of the divorce, Michael Baldwin was required to pay Nancy Baldwin’s attorney’s fee of $300.00 for the divorce.

On August 25, 1972, Michael Baldwin filed in this Court a petition in bankruptcy. An application to determine the dischargeability of debts was duly filed by Nancy Baldwin on October 12, 1972. On January 24, 1973, the Referee determined that the $300.00 attorney fee was a nondischargeable debt. It is from that order that Michael Baldwin seeks review.

Before the Referee and before this Court, Michael Baldwin has asserted that the Nebraska statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-308, Reissue of 1968, which provided the authority for the divorce court to award attorney’s fees, was unconstitutional as impermissible sex discrimination. That statute has been construed by the Nebraska Supreme Court as precluding the granting of an attorney fee to the husband against the wife. O’Neill v. O’Neill, 164 Neb. 674, 83 N.W.2d 92 [1957].

In this Court’s order of April 11, 1973, the Court directed that “briefs should particularly address the question of whether an underlying constitutional question as asserted herein may be raised in a bankruptcy proceeding.” The brief of Michael Baldwin, although it discusses in some depth the merits of the constitutional question, fails to shed any light on that threshold problem.

The Court’s own research has revealed no cases directly on point. However, the Supreme Court has viewed similar questions as within the doctrine of res judi*674cata. Chicot County Dist. v. Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329 [1940], In that opinion, the Court held that the aggrieved party had the opportunity to raise the constitutional question on appeal of the first decision and that collateral attack should be barred by the doctrine. This Court will make a similar finding. Michael Baldwin could have objected to the constitutionality of the award of attorney’s fees either to the divorce court or in an appeal to the State Supreme Court of the decree of divorce. He is barred from raising the question by the doctrine of res judicata in the dischargeability of debt proceedings by the Referee. The order of the Referee denying discharge will therefore be affirmed and the petition for review will be dismissed.1

1

. Other grounds for discharge of the claim were submitted to the Referee. Michael Baldwin has sought the review of this Court only as to the ruling on the constitutional question.
EXHIBIT 11


                              COLUMBUS ENERGY CORP.
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (In Thousands Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       1996      1995       1994      1993      1992
                                      -------   -------    -------   -------   -------
<S>                                   <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>    
Primary:

 Based on weighted  average
  shares  outstanding  including
 the effect of common
 stock equivalents:

 Weighted average shares
  outstanding: ....................     3,063     3,143      3,269     3,404     3,461

Incremental shares attributable
  to  dilutive  stock  options  and
  warrants outstanding based on
 average market price during
the period calculated using
 the treasury stock method ........        34         5         37        91        47
                                      -------   -------    -------   -------   -------

   Total average common and
    common equivalent shares ......     3,097     3,148      3,306     3,495     3,508
                                      =======   =======    =======   =======   =======

Net earnings (loss) ...............   $ 2,098   $(1,495)   $ 2,190   $ 3,806   $ 2,415
                                      =======   =======    =======   =======   =======

Earnings (loss) per share:
 Net earnings (loss) ..............   $   .68   $  (.48)   $   .67   $  1.12   $   .70
                                      =======   =======    =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
Note:        Fully  diluted  earnings  per  share in 1995,  1994,  and 1993 were
             identical  to  the  primary  earnings  per  share.   Fully  diluted
             incremental  shares in 1996 and 1992 were  206,000 and 116,000 with
             total average common and common share  equivalent  shares 3,269,000
             and  3,577,000,  respectively.  The  number of shares and per share
             amounts from  1992-1994 have been restated to reflect the 10% stock
             dividends issued in 1994 and 1995.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1810

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain anti-HIV and anti-AIDS drug.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 23, 1998

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain anti-HIV and

anti-AIDS drug.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:
2

•S 1810 IS

‘‘ 9902.32.56 6-Chloro-4-

(cyclopropylethynyl)-1, 4-

Dihydro-4-

(trifluoro-methyl)-2H-3, 1-

benzoxazin-2-

one (CAS No.

154598–52–4)

(provided for in

subheading

2934.90.30) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
DANIEL BUELL, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

3:15-CV-00638-MC 

ORDER 

It is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the amount of $2, 796.55 shall be awarded to 

Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Attorney fees will be 

paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies 

for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in 

Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (20 l 0). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff's attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DA TED this __ I_ day of -:::S--v V\ e.. ,~Jol7. 

L-__l'--_ 

Michael McShane 

United States District Court Judge
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
 Tropical Plant Genetic Resources and Disease Research: Hilo, HI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Hilo, Hawaii Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center Tropical Plant Genetic Resources and Disease Research People & Locations







Anne  Veillet
                        Tropical Plant Genetic Resources and Disease Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (808) 959-4358
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
AO-WAWD 440 (Rev. 01/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within ___days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or ___ days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 6 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 01/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:15-cv-00617-MO Document 6 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2045. ABDULLAH M. RASHEED v. THE STATE.

Abdullah M. Rasheed was convicted of numerous offenses, including armed

robbery and aggravated assault, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. See

Rasheed v. State, Case Number A02A0524, decided April 25, 2002. He has

subsequently filed multiple pro se motions attacking his convictions, all of which

have been denied. In his most recent motion, “Motion for Recomputation,” Rasheed

contended that because all of the offenses arose fromthe same incident, he should not

have been convicted of multiple offenses and subjected to consecutive sentences. 

The trial court denied the motion, and Rasheed filed this appeal.

Although Rasheed’s motion purported to challenge his sentence, he did not

raise a colorable void-sentence claim. See Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2)

(748 SE2d 446) (2013) (“Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to

claimsthat – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the

sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically

because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment for which the applicable penalstatute

provides.”). Because Rasheed did not contend that hissentence islonger than the law

allows, he did not raise a valid void-sentence claim. Instead, he once again

challenged his convictions. As we have repeatedly advised Rasheed, a postconviction motion seeking to vacate an allegedly void conviction is not a valid

procedure in a criminal case, and any appeal from the denial of such a motion must

be dismissed. See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Finally, we note that, given our dismissals of Rasheed’s prior appeals, the

September 02, 2015
instant appeal is essentially frivolous. OCGA § 42-12-7.2 provides:

In no eventshall a prisoner file any action in forma pauperisin any court

of this state if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions while

he or she was incarcerated or detained in any facility, filed any action in

any court of this state that was subsequently dismissed on the grounds

that such action was frivolous or malicious, unless the prisoner is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

We thus caution Rasheed that if he continues to file such motions, he may find all

future claims barred by OCGA § 42-12-7.2.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/02/2015
matechexh10_57.htm


    
      
        

      
Exhibit
10.57

    


    AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

    


    The
following provisions are hereby incorporated into, and are hereby made a part
of, that certain Settlement Agreement dated August 19, 2008 by and among Matech
Corp., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Material Technologies, Inc.) (“MaTech”),
RBC Dexia Investor Services Bank Luxembourg (“Julius Baer”), Anima S.G.R.P.A.
Rubrica Anima America (“Anima”), and Kreuzfeld Ltd., (“Kreuzfeld”) and such
provisions are effective retroactively to the date of the Agreement (the
“Effective Date”).  All capitalized terms in this Amendment to
Agreement, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the Agreement.

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              With
      respect to Julius Baer only, Section 1.2 of the Agreement is hereby
      amended, as follows:

            


    

    


    1.2     
Julius Baer hereby agrees to return to MaTech, any and all shares of common
stock held by them, including the Common Stock, in exchange for a number of
newly issued shares of MaTech common stock equal to 50% of those shares returned
by them (the “Shares”);

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              Section
      1.5 is hereby deleted in its
entirety.

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              3.

            	
              All
      other provisions of the Agreement shall remain
  unchanged.

            


    

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Parties have caused this Amendment to Agreement to be duly executed and
delivered as of November 4, 2008.

     

                                               

    
      
        	
                MATECH
      CORP., 

                a
      Delaware corporation 

              	 	 	
                RBC DEXIA INVESTOR
      SERVICES

                BANK
      LUXEMBOURG,

              	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	 	 	
                 

              	 
	
                By:
      Robert M. Bernstein 

              	 	 	
                By:

              	 
	
                Its:
      Chief Executive Officer

              	 	 	
                Its:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: CLAUDIA PATRICIA ZARAGOZA

DELGADO §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00225

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Lyda Ness Garcia, presiding judge of the 383rd District Court of El Paso County,

Texas, and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus shou ld be conditionally granted.

We therefore direct the trial court to vacate its order partially granting Husband’s motion for

summary judgment “in conformity with” our earlier opinion, in accordance with the opinion of

this Court. The writ of mandamus will issue should the trial court fail to comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Soto, J., and Ferguson, Judge

Ferguson, Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP 

Lukasz I. Wozniak, OSN #136245 

4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Tel.: (949) 477-5050; Fax: (949) 608-9142 

Email: lwozniak@wrightlegal.net 

Attorneys for Defendant CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY 

KATHERINE COTRELL, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00844-AA 

Plaintiff, Assigned to: Han. Ann Aiken 

[~]JUDGMENT 

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, 

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, 

INC. 

Defendants. 

On July 30, 2015, the Court issued its Opinion and Order on defendants' Central 

Mortgage Company ("Central") and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. ("NWTS") (collectively, 

"Defendants") motions to dismiss plaintiff Katherine Cotrell's ("Plaintiff') complaint pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 15.] The Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss, 

permitting Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint within 20 days from the 

date of the issuance of the Opinion and Order. 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 

Page Jl 

Case 3:15-cv-00844-AA Document 16 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 2
Plaintiff has failed to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint and, accordingly, 

pursuant to the Court's Opinion and Order, and good cause appearing therefor: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 

. Plaintiffs entire action against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice. This is a 

final judgment. 

Dated this ~day of~~~~~---' 2015. 

Presented by: 

WRIGHT FINLAY & ZAK, LLP 

Is/ Lukasz I. Wozniak 

Lukasz I. Wozniak OSN #136245 

Email: lwozniak@wrightlegal.net 

4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Hon. Ann Aiken 

Tel.: (949) 477-5050; Fax: (949)608-9142 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 

Page 12 

Case 3:15-cv-00844-AA Document 16 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2