alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LEROY STALLWORTH,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN KERESTES,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 46 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5026 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Uniconazole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Uniconazole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNICONAZOLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.24 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th 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.

February 4, 2015

p0128 

# Order

Clerk February 4, 2015

149558

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149558

COA: 314864

Ingham CC: 12

- 000908

- FH

DEMARCUS ANDANTE WARE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARY JO SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 272 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of February, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1599

HAVVA CHABUK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-1340-A)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Havva Chabuk, Appellant Pro Se. Celeste deLorge Flippen, J.C.

PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Plano, Texas; Claude David Convisser,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying her

motion for leave to file untimely answers to Appellee’s request for

admission and granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on

Appellant’s claims of retaliatory discharge, hostile work environment, and negligent supervision against her employer. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Chabuk v. J.C. Penney Co., No. CA-97-1340-A (E.D.

Va. Mar. 20, 1998). 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
Order entered March 13, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00086-CV

IN RE KEVIN CHRISTOPHER REED, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-83282-2015

ORDER

Before Justices Schenck, Partida-Kipness, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s January 22, 

2020 petition for writ of mandamus. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

s0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140207 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140207 

 COA: 285730 

Macomb CC: 2000-003516-FH; 

 2001-001413-FH 

ALAN EUGENE RHEA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2009 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">LMS Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of JOHN H. SOSA, Respondent, -<br><br>against<br><br>New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered May 16, 2013. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). In the alternative, defendant sought summary judgment dismissing two claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity and dismissing theportion of each of plaintiff's claims which exceeded the amount permitted by the workers' compensation fee schedule.</p><p>While defendant submitted properly sworn statements by the doctor who was scheduled to perform the IMEs, the doctor did not establish that she possessed personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff's assignor for the IMEs. Therefore, defendant failed to establish its entitlement, as a matter of law, to judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for IMEs (<i>see Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. &amp; Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]; <i>Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co.</i>, 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]).</p><p>In opposition to the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment on the grounds of lack of medical necessity and that the amounts sought exceeded the amounts permitted by the workers' compensation fee schedule, plaintiff submitted affidavits from its owner, which affidavits were sufficient to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: June 03, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
STATE v. FLOWERS

No. COA05-278.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Columbus (03CRS6687).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 August 5, 2008/s/ Frederic H. Moll, M.DChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
STATE v. BRYANT.

No. COA05-237.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# L_2017049DE.01005201.xml

| 25.2.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 49/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2017

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 49/52

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2016/2107 der Kommission vom 1. Dezember 2016 zur Änderung des Anhangs I der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 669/2009 betreffend die Liste der Futtermittel und Lebensmittel nicht tierischen Ursprungs, die verstärkten amtlichen Kontrollen bei der Einfuhr unterliegen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 327 vom 2. Dezember 2016
  )

Auf Seite 55, Anhang zur Änderung von Anhang I der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 669/2009, erste Spalte dritte Zeile:

Anstatt:

„Zitronen (Citrus limon, Citrus limonum) (Lebensmittel — frisch, gekühlt oder gefroren)
  “

muss es heißen:

„Zitronen (Citrus limon, Citrus limonum) (Lebensmittel — frisch, gekühlt oder getrocknet)
  “.

---
# L_2017145EN.01002601.xml

| 8.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 145/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/26

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (Euratom) 2017/956 of 29 May 2017 on the adoption of the 2016-2019 high flux reactor supplementary research programme to be implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 144 of 7 June 2017
  )

On page 24, in the signatory:

for:

‘C. CORDONA
  ’,

read:

‘C. CARDONA
  ’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,984
<INVENTORY>                                    346,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               629,953
<PP&E>                                         554,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,886,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          397,556
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           203
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,886,556
<SALES>                                        486,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               486,101
<CGS>                                          383,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  383,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (346)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,243)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,013
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5300 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain cores used in 

remanufacture. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. LAHOOD 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 cores 

used in remanufacture. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CORES USED IN REMANUFACTURE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Headings 9902.25.30, 

5 9902.25.31, and 9902.25.32 of the Harmonized Tariff 

6 Schedule of the United States are each amended by strik7 ing the date in the effective period column and inserting 

8 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5300 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
# L_2017178EN.01001601.xml

| 11.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 178/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 178/16

---

Corrigendum to the Council Decision (EU) 2017/470 of 28 February 2017 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences of the European Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 73 of 18 March 2017
  )

On the contents page, in the title on page 1, and on page 2, recital 7 and Article 1:

for:

‘... Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences of the European Union’,

read:

‘... Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences’.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RICHARD GAUGH, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3240

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, MORRIS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ROFIN-SINAR
TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001019361
<NAME> ROFIN-SINAR TECHNOLOGIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          40,743
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,058
<ALLOWANCES>                                       910
<INVENTORY>                                     28,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,967
<PP&E>                                          37,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,960
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,781
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,189
<SALES>                                        129,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,393
<CGS>                                           82,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,712
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lee HOOD.

No. 398P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Robert Lee Hood, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of July 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
IN RE B.J.

No. COA04-1730.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Rutherford (03J106).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated in part.
STATE v. Larry McLeod PULLEY.

No. 42P04-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of February 2006 by Defendant for Disposition Order or Judgment in the Foresaid Case:

*516"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 15, 

2014

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00300-CV

MARK LUCAS, Appellant

V.

OWEN KRATZ, JOHN V. LOVOI, T. WILLIAM PROTER, III, NANCY K. 

QUINN, WILLIAM L. TRANSIER, JAMES A. WATT, ANTHONY 

TRIPODO, BART H. HEIJERMANS, ALISA B. JOHNSON, GORDON F. 

AHALT, BERNARD DUROC-DANNER, AND MERIDIAN CONSULTING, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-26160

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 18, 2014. On June 30, 2014

appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. 
2

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby and Wise.
STATE v. LEWIS.

No. COA05-262.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Henderson (03CRS54076, 03CRS54079).

Case without published opinion. No Error.
GIGNILLIAT v. CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS (Five Cases).

Nos. A03A2364-A03A2368.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

January 15, 2004.

Bouhan, Williams & Levy, LLP, Walter C. Hartridge, David B. Dennison, Savannah, for appellant.

Karen D. Barr, Savannah, for appellee.

RUFFIN, Presiding Judge.

On July 16, 1999, T. Heyward Gignilliat appealed to the Chatham County Board of Equalization regarding the 1999 tax assessments for parcels of property he owns in Chatham County. Unhappy with the Board's ruling, Gignilliat appealed to the superior court, which found in his favor as to each parcel. Gignilliat thereafter moved for attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 48-5-311(g)(4)(B)(ii). The trial court denied his motion, finding that this provision was not applicable because it only applies to assessments and proceedings commenced on or after January 1, 2000, and these cases commenced on or before July 16, 1999. Gignilliat appeals. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

Pursuant to OCGA § 48-5-311(g)(4)(B)(ii),

> If the final determination of value on appeal is 80 percent or less of the valuation 
*356
set by the county board of equalization as to commercial property, or 85 percent or less of the valuation set by the county board of equalization as to other property, the taxpayer, in addition to the interest provided for by this paragraph, shall recover costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the action....

As noted by the trial court, this provision became effective on January 1, 2000, and it applies to all assessments and proceedings commenced on or after January 1, 2000.1 Gignilliat admits that these cases involve 1999 tax valuations, but argues that he is entitled to costs and attorney fees because the Board did not decide these cases ****185** until March 3, 2000, and he timely appealed to the superior court. We disagree.

It is clear from the record that the property assessments were issued on June 23, 1999, and that Gignilliat appealed the assessments to the Board on July 16, 1999. The timing of the Board's decision thereafter is irrelevant. Because the assessments and proceedings commenced before January 1, 2000, OCGA § 48-5-311(g)(4)(B)(ii) is not applicable.2 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Gignilliat's request for attorney fees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

SMITH, C.J., and MILLER, J., concur.

1.

See Ga. L.1999, p. 1062, § 4.

2.

See id.