alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Aaron Mitchell DAVIS.

No. 627P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Paul Pooley, for Aaron Mitchell Davis.

Scott Stroud, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*623*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of November 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
O & M INDUSTRIES v. SMITH ENGINEERING.

No. 502PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2005.

Matthew H. Bryant, Winston-Salem, for O & M Industries.

Michael Knapp, Rolly L. Chambers, Charlotte, for Kurz Transfer Products.

James R. Vann, Raleigh, Nan E. Hannah, Cary, for Southeastern Asso. of Credit Mgt.

Fenton T. Erwin, Jr., for American Sub-contractors Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of June 2005 by American Subcontractors Association of the Carolinas for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of June 2005."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7303
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHAN D. DEBREW, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-156, CA-95-412) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathan D. Debrew, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Debrew , Nos. CR-94-156; CA-95-412 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
BOICE-WILLIS CLINIC, P.A. v. DAVID S. S.

No. 2P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

George J. Oliver, Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Raleigh, John W. Mann, for Boice-Willis Clinic, P.A.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of January 2006 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

*924"Motion for Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
Dismiss; Opinion Filed September 25, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00231

- CV

HOLLYE G. MUHAMMAD , Appellant V. BLTREJV3 DALLAS LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 00274D



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang Hollye G. Muhammad’s brief was due August 1, 2014. When appellant fail ed to file her
brief, we notified her, by postcard dated August 4, 2014, that the time had expired and directed
her to file her brief along with an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned that the

failure to file her brief and extension motion woul d result in the dismissal of this appeal without
further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise
corresponded with the Court regarding the status of her brief or this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3 (b), (c).

140231F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HOLLYE G. MUHAMMAD, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00231

- CV V.
BLTREJV3 DALLAS LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 14

- 00274D. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Bridges and Evans participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion o f this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee BLTREJV3 DALLAS LLC recover its costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant HOLLYE G. MUHAMMAD.

Judgment entered this 25th day of September, 2014.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-8-2022]

On March 11, 2022, Pfizer, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 43E, in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (87 FR 15911, March 21, 2022). On July 11, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: July 11, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-15087 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Order entered December 12, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01306
- CV
DIANA BOKTOR AND AMI R BOKTOR, Appellant s V. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A . , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 12174



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ December 10, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file their brief on the merits. By postcard notice dated December 2, 2019, the Court notified the Dallas County District Clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue and instructed her to file the record within thirty days. Because appellants have not requested a reporter’s record, their brief
on the merits will be due thirt y days after the clerk’s record is filed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.6(a)(1). Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion as premature.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42198-42199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which

[[Page 42199]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID 2022 DMID Omnibus BAA (HHS-
NIH-NIAID-BAA2022-1) Research Area 001: Development of Vaccine 
Candidates for Biodefense, Antimicrobial Resistant (AMR) Infections 
and Emerging Infectious Diseases (N01)-2.
    Date: August 9-10, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5023, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aacccecfd9c3c6dccbeac4c3cbc3ce84c4c3c284cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d6b69687e64617b6c4d63646c646923636465236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 8, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-15070 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L.

Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1876

___________

Joeffre Kolosky, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

City of Brooklyn Park; City of *

Brooklyn Center; City of Burnsville, * [UNPUBLISHED]

City of Savage; Dakota County, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2009

Filed: June 22, 2009

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joeffre Kolosky appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint for failure to state a claim. After de novo review, see Olsen v. Mukasey,

541 F.3d 827, 830 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 77 U.S.L.W. 3606 (U.S. May 4,

2009), we conclude the dismissal of Kolosky’s complaint was proper for the reasons
-2-

stated by the district court. We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

denial of Kolosky’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, because Kolosky

failed to demonstrate that he had insufficient resources to pay the filing fee.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference into the registration statement of BIO-keyInternational, Inc. (formerly SAC Technologies, Inc.) onForm S-8 (file no. 333-37351), which became effective October 7,1997, of our report dated March 29, 2006 relating to the financialstatements which appear in this Form 10-KSB for the years endedDecember 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003.

 
| /s/ DS & B, Ltd. |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota              |
| March 30, 2006                 |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10905 Conference Calendar

CHARLES EDWARD MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DOUGLAS HUGH SCHOPMEYER, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-1379-P

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Charles Moore, Texas prisoner # 824496, appeals from the dismissal of his lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state public defender Douglas Hugh Schopmeyer as frivolous. Moore first argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The district court generally should not dismiss a pro se complaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, but even a “pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting itsNo. 98-10905 -2-

1 The first strike is the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous in Moore v. Boy , No. 3:98CV680 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 1998). The second strike is the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of the complaint in the instant case. Moore v. Schopmeyer , No. 3:98CV1379-P (N.D. Tex. Jul. 28, 1998). conclusions.” Jacquez v. Procunier , 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986)(citations omitted). Because Moore failed to submit an amended complaint and the allegations contained in his motion to amend would also have been subject to dismissal as frivolous, any error committed by the district court in denying Moore’s motion was not reversible error. Moore also contends that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his lawsuit as frivolous. The district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). We review such a dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Id. Examination of the record and Moore’s appellate brief indicates that his complaint lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing it as frivolous. Moore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We inform Moore that because he has now accumulated three strikes, 1 he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he isNo. 98-10905 -3- incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Moore’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5473 

To increase the supply and lower the cost of petroleum by temporarily 

suspending the acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

Mr. WELCH of Vermont introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To increase the supply and lower the cost of petroleum 

by temporarily suspending the acquisition of petroleum 

for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strategic Petroleum 

5 Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 

6 2008’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PETROLEUM ACQUISITION FOR 

8 STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

10 (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, during 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 5473 IH

1 calendar year 2008, the Secretary of Energy shall suspend 

2 acquisition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Re3 serve through the royalty-in-kind program or any other 

4 acquisition method. 

5 (b) RESUMPTION.—The Secretary may resume acqui6 sition of petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

7 through the royalty-in-kind program or any other acquisi8 tion method during calendar year 2008 not earlier than 

9 30 days after the date on which the Secretary notifies 

10 Congress that the Secretary has determined that the 

11 weighted average price of petroleum in the United States 

12 for the most recent 90-day period is $50 or less per barrel. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.3**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, David L. Sokol, Chief Executive Officer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 
 Dated: November 4, 2004
 
 
 /s/ David L. Sokol
 David L. Sokol
 Chief Executive Officer
DAVIS v. CONTINENTAL TIRE.

No. COA05-787.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #811985).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6869

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID ZIMMERMAN HESS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-92-15, CA-97-968-18-2)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Zimmerman Hess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Zimmerman Hess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and motion for reconsideration. We have

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

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Hess, Nos. CR-92-15; CA-97-968-18-2 (D.S.C. Jan.

27, 1998; May 27, 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.

DISMISSED
# L_2012277EN.01000301.xml

| 11.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 929/2012

of 8 October 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Jagnięcina podhalańska (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland’s application to register the name ‘Jagnięcina podhalańska’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Poland’s application to register the name ‘Jagnięcina podhalańska’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 11, 13.1.2012, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.1   Fresh meat (and offal)

POLAND

Jagnięcina podhalańska (PGI)

---
H. R. 5395 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 11001 

Dunklin Drive in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘William ‘Bill’ Clay Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ CLAY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 11001 Dunklin Drive in St. Louis, Missouri, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William ‘Bill’ Clay Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘William ‘Bill’ Clay Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.