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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136802 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

LITITIA BOND, Personal Representative of Justices 

the Estate of NORMA JEAN BLOCKER, 

Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, 

Intervening Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136802 

 COA: 273315 

Oakland CC: 2005-066794-NH 

ADAM COOPER, M.D., KRISTEN McDANIEL,

D.O., and BOTSFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the sufficiency of the 

plaintiff’s notice of intent to file suit under MCL 600.2912b(4) and Boodt v Borgess 

Medical Center, 481 Mich 558 (2008). 

CAVANAGH and WEAVER, JJ., are not persuaded that the case should be remanded 

for further proceedings, but they would grant leave to appeal to reconsider Boodt, supra. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

d1021 

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. 

October 24, 2008 

Clerk
FARRELL v. THOMAS

179A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for Thomas, Kelly J. (Commissioner), et al.

Richard W. Farrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Farrell, Peter Jerard.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2016 by Respondent to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
Marcia HUTCHISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. COA16-1082

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Erick Turron OATES

No. COA16-903

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

NO ERROR.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40973

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LONNEY CHARLES WILLIAMS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:06-CR-61-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lonney Charles

Williams has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has filed a response.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Williams’s response

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40973

2

herein, Williams’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-0832V 

Filed: March 16, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

DEBORAH FORBES, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Ann Mayhew Golski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On June 20, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccination she received in her left 

deltoid on October 4, 2016. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that she received 

the vaccine in the United States, suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than 

six months and has never received compensation for her injury, alleged as vaccine 

caused. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
On March 15, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, 

Department of Health of Human Services “believes that petitioner’s alleged injury is 

consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined 

on the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner has 

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act”. Id. at 5. 

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19179]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of 
the President's Cancer Panel.
    The meeting will be open to the pubic as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: October 24, 2005.
    Open: October 24, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: Strategic Planning-Translating Research Team Science/
Clinical Research/Infrastructure Needs.
    Place: Hotel Washington, 15th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20004.
    Contact Person: Abby Sandler, PhD, Executive Secretary, National 
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 6116, Room 
212, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-9399.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the comments to the Contact Person listed on 
this notice. The comments should include the name, address, 
telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available 
on the Institute's/Center's home page: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the 
meeting will be posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 16, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-19179 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2008209EN.01007201.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/72

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-5/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Summary of the pleas in law in the action - Time-limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 209/131)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier, G. Corstens and J. Vermer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to Grade A*11 pursuant to the 2006 promotion year — Annulment of a series of decisions concerning the career of the applicant and of other officials of the Court of Auditors — Annulment of the result of the Court of Auditor's Staff Committee election of 2006 — Claim for damages

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 44.

1

---
#### Theodore JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; et al., Defendants, Louisiana Department of Education; State of Louisiana; President of Louisiana State University System; Board of Regents, Defendants-Appellants. Lynn August, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Suzanne Mitchell; Mae Nelson; Ed Barras; Department of Social Services, for the State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 02-30318, 02-30369.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Jeremy Stuart Buck, Hughes & Luce, Dallas, TX, Theodore Johnson, Bogalusa, LA, for Johnson.

Kevin K. Russell, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, DC, for U.S., Intervenor.

Richard A. Curry, Michael Brent Hicks, McGlinchey Stafford, Baton Rouge, LA, Rebecca L. Clausen, New Orleans, LA, for all Defendants-Appellants.

Sanford A. Kutner, Metairie, LA, for August.

Micheál Leslie Penn, New Orleans, LA, for Mitchell, Nelson, Barras and Dept, of Social Services.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service has requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc filed by appellee Theodore Johnson and a majority of the judges in active service have voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc. Further, a majority of judges in active service have determined, on the Court’s own motion, to rehear en banc the consolidated case, *Lynn August vs. Suzanne Mitchell, Et Al.*

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that these cases shall be reheard by the court en banc. No decision has yet been made with respect to oral argument. The Clerk *733will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATION     I, Tom J. Fatjo, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WCA Waste Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 8, 2005 /s/ Tom J. Fatjo     Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.  Chief Executive Officer
---

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sass Peress, Chief Executive
Officer of ICP Solar Technologies Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB of ICP Solar Technologies Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this
quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying
officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures 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 quarterly report is
being prepared;

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

c) disclosed in this report any
change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying
officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of our financial reporting
internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.



Date: December 22, 2006

/s/ Sass Peress 
--------------------------------- 
Sass Peress 
Chief Executive Officer

---
EXHIBIT 32





CLEAN POWER TECHNOLOGIES INC.





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 Clean Power Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Abdul Mitha, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 19,  2010
By:
/s/Abdul MithaName:
Abdul MithaTitle:
Principal Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
NO. 07-08-0328-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 22, 2008

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.U. AND C.L.U., CHILDREN

_________________________________

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 65,381-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Heath Upshaw, filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s

order modifying and clarifying the parent-child relationship. Because Upshaw’s notice of

appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b).

A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after an appealable order is signed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. When a party files a notice of appeal with the trial court within fifteen
2

days after the deadline for filing the notice, and files in the appellate court a motion

complying with Rule 10.5(b), including a recitation of the facts relied on to reasonably

explain the need for an extension, the appellate court may extend the time to file the notice

of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. The Supreme Court has held that the motion for

extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, takes the

necessary steps to perfect an appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17

(Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, it is still necessary for an appellant to provide this Court with

a “reasonable explanation” for the need for an extension. See Jones v. City of Houston,

976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). 

 In this case, the trial court’s order was signed on July 2, 2008, making the notice

of appeal due no later than August 1, 2008. Upshaw filed his notice of appeal on August

5, 2008. Even though Upshaw’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, because it was filed

within the fifteen days of its original due date, we implied the filing of a motion for extension

of time to file notice of appeal. By letter dated September 17, 2008, this Court requested

Upshaw to provide a reasonable explanation, in writing, on or before October 10, 2008, as

to why an extension of time was necessary. At the same time, we further admonished

Upshaw that failure to do so might result in dismissal of his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3. Having been provided a reasonable opportunity to do so, Upshaw has failed to

comply with our request or otherwise provide a reasonable explanation for the need for an

extension. 
3

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Our disposition

renders moot an extension of time filed by the court reporter in which to file the reporter’s

record. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice
Filed 11/20/19 by C lerk of Su preme Court


### I N T H E S U P RE M E C O U R T S T A T E O F N O R T H D A KO T A

2019 ND 266

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Joshua Lee Buchanan, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20190183

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Troy J

. LeFevre , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Joseph K. Nwoga, Assistant State’s Attorney, Jamestown, N

. D ., for plaintiff and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus

- Parr, Grand Forks, N

. D ., for defendant and appellant.1 State v. Buchanan No. 20190183
Per Curiam. [¶1] Joshua Buchanan appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault domestic violence. He argues the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude sufficient evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen