alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TERM SHEET

                                  Between

                          JEFFREY DICKSON (J.D.)
                                    and
                  ATLANTIC CENTRAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (ACE)

                               (The Parties)


1)      The parties agree that they will form a new corporation to be called
        First American AMO (FA-AMO).

2)      The business of FA-AMO shall be that as described in the business plan
        submitted to the ACE CEO on May 21, 1997 by J.D. in Bermuda.

3)      ACE agrees to fund FA-AMO to the point at which separate funding is
        acquired for FA-AMO, which funding shall be sought immediately.

  ACE will fund FA-AMO up to $450,000 prior to any separate outside
  funding of FA-AMO, and consistent with a detailed Business Plan
  submitted to ACE by J.D. and as periodically revised.

4)      The initial market capitalization of FA-AMO will be as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

  <S>                           <C>
                                   Shares
                                 Outstanding
                                -------------
  ACE                             1,001,000
  DICKSON                           150,000
  SEIDEL                             50,000
  GRECHNIW                           50,000
                                -----------
                                  1,201,000  (sic)
                                ===========

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
5)      The management team will be compensated consistent with the business
        plan submitted by J.D. except that J.D. will be paid $10,000 per month
        plus an annual bonus paid from a profit sharing plan to be developed.

6)      J.D. agrees not to compete with FA-AMO for a period of one year after
        severing employment with FA-AMO as long FA-AMO continues to pay J.D. at
        the rate of pay enjoyed by J.D. in the year prior to severance.

This Agreement is binding on the parties as a condition of ACE moving forward
with a plan to fund FA-AMO immediately.

Any disputes will be subject to binding arbitration submitted to a recognized
independent Arbitration Board in the Country of Bermuda.


  Agreed and Accepted                       Agreed and Accepted



  --------------------------------          ----------------------------
  Atlantic Central Enterprises, Ltd.        Jeffrey Dickson


  Date: ________________________            Date: ____________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HORACE THOMAS, AKA Horace

Andrew Bell,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MERLE BRUCE, M.D.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-16204

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00619-MMDCWH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Horace Thomas, a.k.a. Horace Andrew Bell, a California state prisoner,

appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

JAN 30 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We vacate and remand.

Although the district court properly dismissed Thomas’s complaint because

Thomas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim

relating to his jaw surgery, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing

Thomas’s action without first providing him with an opportunity to amend. See

Weilburg, 488 F.3d at 1205 (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to

amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting

forth standard of review). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the

district court with instructions to provide Thomas with an opportunity to file an

amended complaint. 

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 14-16204
TREAT v. ROANE.

No. COA05-1234.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (01CVS10393).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
IN RE BROWN

No. COA06-399

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Pitt (05CRS15544, 05CRS15545).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. OBIORAH.

No. COA04-1567.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Durham (03CRS42976)

Case without published opinion. No error.
PATEL v. STANLEY WORKS CUSTOMER SUPPORT.

No. 445P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2006.

Charles G. Monnett, III, Charlotte, for Patel.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of August 2006 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2006."
BELANGER v. WARREN

No. COA06-562

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Wake (99CVS2431).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. COLLINS.

No. COA06-204.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Hoke (03CRS52545).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QT for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Edward E. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








*/s/
                Edward E. Cohen*Edward
                E. CohenChief
                Executive OfficerJuly
                24, 2006
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ANA ORTEGA, * No. 12-703V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran 

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Filed: October 4, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement; influenza (flu) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * shoulder injury related to vaccine

* administration (SIRVA)

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner

Tara J. Kilfoyle, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT*

On October 17, 2012, Ana Ortega filed a petition for compensation, alleging that she 

suffered a shoulder injury caused by an influenza (flu) vaccine, which she received on November 

17, 2011. Petitioner seeks compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 

In her Rule 4(c) report, respondent stated her opinion that this case is appropriate for 

compensation under the terms of the Act. Resp’t Rep., filed Sept. 24, 2013, at 2. Respondent 

stated further that “petitioner’s claim satisfies the Althen requirements and that her SIRVA was 

caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccination she received on November 17, 2011.” Id. at 5 

(referencing Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

Special masters may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to compensation based 

upon the record. A hearing is not required. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). Based 

upon a review of the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner has established that 

she is entitled to compensation. The parties are directed to begin the process of determining the 

amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled. 

 

*

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the 

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website. 
2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Tucker McCarthy, at (202) 357-6392.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
IN RE S.W.

No. COA05-638.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (01J372, 01J373, 03J213).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Monte M. POTTER.

No. 99P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of February 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Plain Error Review N.C.G.S. 7A-31(B)(1)(2)(3)(4)":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5745 

To amend the Missing Children’s Assistance Act to expand the definition 

of missing child for purposes of that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mr. LAMPSON (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE

GREEN of Texas, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, 

and Mr. POE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Missing Children’s Assistance Act to expand 

the definition of missing child for purposes of that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE MISSING CHILDREN’S AS4 SISTANCE ACT. 

5 Section 403(1) of the Missing Children’s Assistance 

6 Act (42 U.S.C. 5772(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) 

8 by striking ‘‘whose whereabouts are unknown to 

9 such individual’s legal custodian if’’, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5745 IH

1 (2) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)— 

2 (A) by redesignating such subparagraphs 

3 as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and 

4 (B) by indenting the left margin of such 

5 subparagraphs 2 ems to the right, 

6 (3) by inserting before clause (i), as so redesig7 nated, the following: 

8 ‘‘(A) whose whereabouts are unknown to 

9 such individual’s legal custodian if—’’, and 

10 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(B) whose whereabouts are known to 

12 such individual’s legal custodian from whose 

13 control such child— 

14 ‘‘(i) was removed in violation of law; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(ii) is believed by such custodian to 

17 have been taken out of the United States 

18 without the consent of such custodian by, 

19 or for the benefit of, an individual who 

20 may possibly claim custodial rights with re21 spect to such child;’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
IN RE J.D.

No. COA06-1050.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Wake (04J233).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
IN RE A.V.

No. COA06-535

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Harnett (04J221, 04J222, 04J223, 04J224, 04J225).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon M. CAPLES. State of North Carolina v. Christopher G. Mitchell.

No. 512P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Steven M. Arbogast, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

M. Alexander Charns, Durham, for Brandon M. Caples.

Paul Pooley, for Christopher G. Mitchell.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 23rd day of September 2005 *12by 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 19th day of December 2006."
**Exhibit 23.2**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements (No. 333-56423,No. 333-74335, No. 333-75525, No. 333-75972 andNo. 333-101150) on Forms S-3, (No. 333-66959 andNo. 333-74063) on Forms S-4 and (No. 333-27553,No. 333-49121, No. 333-49145, No. 333-67721,No. 333-74331, No. 333-78947, No. 333-90268 andNo. 333-90948) on Forms S-8, of Kroll Inc. of ourreport dated February 13, 2003 (March 14, 2003 as toNotes 2 and 21), relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Kroll Inc. as of and for the two years endedDecember 31, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating toi) Kroll Inc.’s change in method of accounting forgoodwill and other intangible assets to conform to Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 142, and ii) theapplication of procedures relating to certain disclosures offinancial statement amounts related to the 2000 consolidatedfinancial statements that were audited by other auditors whoceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion orother form of assurance other than with respect to suchdisclosures), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Kroll Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.
Deloitte & Touche LLPNew York, New York
March 27, 2003
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 10.4

     Mr. Bransfield's Employment Agreement is the same as the Employment
Agreement in Exhibit 10.2, which is incorporated herein by reference except as
to: (i) the name of the signatory, which is John R. Bransfield, Jr.; (ii) the
position in Section 1, which is Senior Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer; (iii) the signatory for the Company, which is Joseph L.
Mancino; (iv) the guarantor for the Company, which is Joseph L. Mancino; and (v)
the amount of the base salary in Section 3(a), which is $280,000.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of the Expunction of A.L.

, * From the 441st District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. C V56100

.

No. 11

- 20

- 00 048

- C V * December 16 , 20 2 1

* Memorandum O pinion by Trotter , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J .)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion,

we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this cause to the trial court with

instructions to grant Appellant’s petition for expunction.
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

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140007 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140007 

 COA: 292693 

Wayne CC: 04-012384-02 

DERMAINE A. RIOS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
CALABRIA v. ELECTIONS & HUDSON.

No. 625P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mark Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for Bd. of Elections.

Michael Crowell, Raleigh, for Hudson.

John Wallace, Raleigh, for FairJudges.net.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of December 2006 by Plaintiff to Expedite Consideration of Writ:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2006."

Justices PARKER, MARTIN and TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
STATE v. GRAVES.

No. COA05-1238.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Alamance (03CRS59287, 03CRS59288, 05CRS51611)

Case without published opinion. No error.
**KFS** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18
- 0432 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM DARRELL MILLER ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30
- day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including April 2 1 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 13 2020

03/13/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0432
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5744 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5744

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently the 
        election to deduct State and local general sales taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2008

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently the 
        election to deduct State and local general sales taxes.

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

SECTION 1. ELECTION TO DEDUCT STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL SALES TAXES MADE 
              PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 164(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general sales taxes) is amended by 
striking subparagraph (I).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
In re R.L.C.

No. 531A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 27, 2006.

Constance Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for R.L.C.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Shannon Gilreath, for NCATL, et al.

Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for NTATL, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of October 2006 by NCATL and the American Civil Liberties Union of N.C. 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 27th day of October 2006."
MISSION HOSPITALS, INC., Petitioner and North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., d/b/a 21st Century Oncology, Petitioner-Intervenor v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent and Asheville Hematology and Oncology Associates, P.A., Resondent-Intervenor.

No. 498P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 15, 2006.

Robert V. Bode, S. Todd Hemphill, Diana Evans Ricketts, Raleigh, Matthew A. Fisher, for Asheville Hematology.

June S. Ferrell, Assistant Attorney General, for DHR.

Susan H. Hargrove, Sean A. Timmons, Jennifer B. Markham, Raleigh, for NC Radiation Therapy.

Maureen D. Murray, Greensboro, Allyson Jones Labbon, William W. Stewart, Raleigh, for Mission Hospitals.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Intervenor (Asheville Hematology) on the *57711th day of September 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this matter, 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 15th day of September 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Intervenor (Asheville Hematology) on the 11th day of September 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 15th day of September 2006."
STATE v. DEAL

No. COA06-889.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Burke (04CRS5373).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
Jeffrey R. HUGHES and wife, Melody Hughes v. K.P. WEBSTER and BI-LO, LLC.

No. 124P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Kenneth R. Raynor, Charlotte, for K.P. Webster and Bi-Lo, Inc.

James Scarbrough, Concord, for Jeffrey & Melody Hughes.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of March 2006 by Defendants 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 29th day of June 2006."
STATE v. Karen Elaine EVERETT.

No. 350A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 5, 2006.

Thomas G. Meacham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of September 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Everett) shall have up to and including the 6th day of October 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of September 2006."