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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4231 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4231

     To prohibit United States assistance to the East-West Center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2014

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit United States assistance to the East-West Center.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO THE EAST-WEST 
              CENTER.

    No funds available to the Department of State or any other 
department or agency may be used to provide assistance to the Center 
for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West (commonly 
known as the East-West Center).
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Juan Antonia MILLER

2PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 15, 2017

Jason C. Yoder, Attorney at Law, for Miller, Juan Antonia.

John G. Batherson, Special Deputy Attorney General, Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina *627The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of September 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of September 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 29th day of September 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Order entered August 30, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00065
- CR
TISHAWN JAHMAI HELTO N, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Cri minal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17
- 76320
- I



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 27, 2019 third motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief. The brief was tendered with the motion. We GRANT the moti on and
ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2 AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 annual report of AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kelley A. Wendt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1)

          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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. This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Date: May 23, 2014 /s/ Kelley A. WendtKelley A. Wendt Chief Financial Officer
RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULE 407, SOUTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT RULES

Appellate Case No. 2017-000476

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 17, 2017

**ORDER**

The South Carolina Bar has filed a petition to amend Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, contained in Rule 407 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, to detail the responsibilities of a supervising lawyer who elects to employ a lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of law.

We adopt the Bar's proposed amendment to Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, with minor modifications. Additionally, we amend Rule 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct to include similar language as in Rule 5.1.

The amendments, which are set forth in the attachment to this Order, are effective immediately.

```
/s/*Donald W. Beatty*/s/*John W. Kittredge J.*/s/*Kaye G. Hearn J.*/s/*John Cannon Few J.*/s/*George C. James, Jr. J.*
```

**Attachment**

**Rule 5.1(b), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, is amended to provide:**

**26(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer, including a suspended lawyer employed pursuant to Rule 34, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

**Comment 10 is added to Rule 5.1, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and provides as follows:**

Under limited circumstances, a suspended lawyer may be employed by a lawyer, law firm, or any other entity providing legal services during the period of suspension. See Rule 34, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In such circumstances, the supervising lawyer shall be solely responsible for the supervision of the suspended lawyer. If the suspended lawyer violates the rules allowing for employment during suspension or any other rule while under the supervision of the supervising lawyer, the supervising lawyer shall be subject to discipline.

**Rule 5.3(b), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, is amended to provide:**

(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer, including a suspended lawyer employed pursuant to Rule 34, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and

**Comment 3 is added to Rule 5.3, RPC, Rule 407, SCACR, and provides as follows:**

Under limited circumstances, a suspended lawyer may be employed by a lawyer, law firm, or any other entity providing legal services during the period of suspension. See Rule 34, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In such circumstances, the supervising lawyer shall be solely responsible for the supervision of the suspended lawyer. If the suspended lawyer violates the rules allowing for employment during suspension or any other rule while under the supervision of the supervising lawyer, the supervising lawyer shall be subject to discipline.
FREEMAN v. STATE of NC, et al.

273P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Ms. Jacqueline Freeman, For Freeman, Jacqueline.

Mr. Grayson Kelley, Chief Deputy, For State of N.C., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of August 2017 by Petitioner for Constitutional Challenge to a Statute:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
----

Amendment to Call FP6-2003-SME-1

(Official Journal of the European Union C 307 of 17 December 2003)

(2004/C 232/02)

With reference to call FP6-2003-SME-1, published in the Official Journal of 17 December 2003 (1), with a closure date of 21 October 2004, the rules for submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions are amended in the following manner:

Proposers who, for technical reasons, can not use the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) may request, by 5 October 2004 at the latest, from the European Commission the right to submit their proposal by post, in conformity with paragraph 6 of the call. Requests of this nature should be addressed to:

----

(1)OJ C 307, 17.12.2003, p. 15.

----
TOWN OF BELVILLE v. URBAN SMART GROWTH, LLC and Michael White

No. 97P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Andrew L. Rodenbough, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, James E. Eldridge, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Town of Belville.

H. Mark Hamlet, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Jessica Humphries, Attorney at Law, Daniel Lee Brawley, Attorney at Law, for Urban Smart Growth, LLC

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of March 2017 by Plaintiff 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 17th of August 2017."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0268

_________________

MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED, TROUT 

UNLIMITED, MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL 

INFORMATION CENTER, EARTHWORKS, and 

AMERICAN RIVERS,

 Petitioners and Appellants,

 v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION and 

TINTINA MONTANA, INC.,

 Respondents and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 26(2), and with good cause shown, Appellants’ Unopposed 

Motion for an Extension of Time to file Appellants’ Opening Brief is GRANTED. 

Appellants shall file their opening brief on or before August 23, 2023.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 14 2023

07/14/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0268
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              22
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                       282
<INVENTORY>                                     17,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,628
<PP&E>                                           8,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,202
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,645
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,482
<CGS>                                           62,814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,455
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 17,488.

#### Florence M. Bolinger *v.*Robert W. Carroll.

(281 P. [2d] 160)

Decided March 14, 1955.

Mr. J. R. Strickland, Mr. Richard Tull, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Martin C. Molholm, Mr. James A. Sweeney, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Action for damages based on alleged wrongful cancellation of lease. Judgment for defendant affirmed without written opinion.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 10 October 2008 – Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT &
SPACE)**

**(Case T-224/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for registration of Community word mark LIGHT & SPACE – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-29, 33-34, 36-40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2007 (Case R 1631/2006-1) concerning registration of the sign LIGHT & SPACE as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Imperial Chemical Industries plc |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark LIGHT & SPACE for goods in Class 2 – Application No 5147756 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Imperial Chemical Industries plc to pay the costs. |
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth,
      Inc.
      do hereby certify that:




(a)
      the
      quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PureDepth, Inc. for the period ended April
      30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of PureDepth,
      Inc.







Dated:
      June 14, 2007





/s/
      Fred
      Angelopoulos


Fred
      Angelopoulos


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      Jonathan McCaman


Jonathan
      McCaman, Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Seid Michael MOSTAFAVI

No. 199A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2017

Joseph P. Lattimore, Attorney at Law, for Mostafavi, Seid Michael.

Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 20th of June 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2017."
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).

PDM/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTER BURNETT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DOCTOR BRUCE FAECHER; et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 08-56887

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02745-PSGMLG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Ester Burnett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s order dismissing some but not all of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PDM/Research 2 08-56887

action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his medical care. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

We have an obligation to consider jurisdictional issues sua sponte. WMX

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). We generally

have jurisdiction over only final orders of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Without the district court’s certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, orders dismissing some but not all of the defendants are

not appealable final orders. See Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776

F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985); Maurer v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 691 F.2d

434, 436 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1982) (“A dismissal as to some but not all defendants is not

a final order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is not appealable absent a

certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).”). Moreover, an order denying

appointment of counsel is not an appealable final order. See Kuster v. Block, 773

F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the

appeal. 

Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Burnett’s

outstanding motions. 

DISMISSED.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 0832 V

Filed: March 16, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

DEBORAH FORBES

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing 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 ENTITLEMENT 1

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 . Petit ion at 1-2

. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine in the United States, suffe red 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 wi th

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

e ase 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 injur y 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 find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 28, 2014

s0224 

# Order

Clerk February 28, 2014

147424

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147424

COA: 307879

Macomb CC: 2007

- 004766

- FC

MICHAEL RALPH GEORGE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2013

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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORNELIUS LOPES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KEVIN DELEON; NANCY PELOSI; 

GAVIN NEWSOM; MARIA ELENA 

DURAZO; ELOISE GOMEZ REYES; 

JOAQUIN CASTRO; JANET 

NAPOLITANO; TONI ATKINS; ELENI 

KOUNALAKIS; ROBERT HERTZBERG; 

SHANNON GROVE; WILLIAM SCOTT; 

CONNIE LEYVA; MIKE MCGUIRE; JIM 

NIELSEN; ERIKA CONTRERAS; 

KATRINA RODRIQUEZ; XAVIER 

BECERRA; ALEX PADILLA, Secretary of 

State of California; BOD ARCHULETA; 

LORI COX; ANISSA BASOCOVILLAREAL; CARL GUARDINO; BRIAN 

BRENNAN; PATRICK YOES; 

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE; 

PATRICK LYNCH; POLICE 

BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE 

CITY OF NEW YORK, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-16476 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07758-CRB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

FEB 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-16476 

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Cornelius Lopes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to comply with 

the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 

Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopes’s action for failure to comply 

with Rule 8(a) because Lopes’s operative complaint was vague, confusing, and 

failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) 

(requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 because it was 

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to 

amend and striking Lopes’s proposed amended complaint because the proposed 

amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a). See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 21-16476 

Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining 

that denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion where proposed 

pleading failed to comply with Rule 8); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 

F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court has inherent power to control its 

docket, including power to strike items from the docket).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.