alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                      |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Harry S. Palmin                                                  |   |   |        |   |
| Harry      S. Palmin                                                      |   |   |   |   |
| President,      Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive      Officer) |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                      |   |   |   |   |
| Date:      August 13, 2010                                                |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                      |   |   |   |   |
| /s/      Joanne M. Protano                                                |   |   |   |   |
| Joanne      M. Protano                                                    |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer                                              |   |   |   |   |
| (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer)                         |   |   |   |   |
|                                                                      |   |   |   |   |
| Date:      August 13, 2010                                                |   |   |   |   |

----
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 23, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00173-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.B.P.M., CHILD

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-23225

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Goldstein

This appeal challenges the trial court’s order holding appellant in contempt for 

failure to pay child support. Because a contempt order is reviewable by petition for writ 

of mandamus or habeas corpus rather than direct appeal, we questioned our jurisdiction 

over this appeal and directed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern. See 

In re Martin, 523 S.W.3d 165, 169 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding). 

Although appellant filed a brief, he fails to show how we have appellate jurisdiction 

over the contempt order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and all pending motions. 

See id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

 

230173f.p05

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein//

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF R.B.P.M., 

CHILD 

No. 05-23-00173-CV 

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-23225.

Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein, 

Justices Nowell and Breedlove 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of May 2023.
# L_2008309EN.01S00301.xml

| 20.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 309/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 309/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19826]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Meeting of the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, 
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Yakima, WA

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is 
hereby given that the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, 
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Yakima, Washington, 
established by the Secretary of the Interior, will hold a public 
meeting. The purpose of the Conservation Advisory Group is to provide 
technical advise and counsel to the Secretary of the Interior and 
Washington State on the structure, implementation, and oversight of the 
Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program.

DATES: Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 9 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Reclamation Office, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, 
Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Esget, Manager, Yakima River 
Basin Water Enhancement Project, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, Washington, 
98901; 509-575-5848, extension 267.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting will be to review 
the staff reports requested at the last meeting and provide program 
oversite. This meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: September 21, 2005.
James A. Esget,
Program Manager.
[FR Doc. 05-19826 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-M
grotemolenexh101.htm











	
$5,000.00

	
                                                          March  26th  2013







 







Promissory Note












 







As hereinafter  agreed  Grote Molen, Inc, jointly  and severally,  promises  to pay to the order of Ben E. Peay, Five Thousand  Dollars  ($5,000.00).   And it is hereby  agreed that the said amount  ($5,000.00)  shall be payable  upon demand: Interest  shall accrue at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum  and will be charged on the unpaid  balance  until the whole amount of the principal  and interest  is paid. There shall be no penalty  for early payment  of this note.


 


Should default be made in the payment of the demand note then the whole unpaid amount shall become immediately due and payable, and in the event default is made and said note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or suit is brought on the same, then the undersigned agrees to pay all costs and attorney's fees that might be incurred.  If there is a lawsuit, borrower agrees upon lender's request to submit to the jurisdiction of the county of Bannock County, the State of Idaho.  This note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Idaho.




 


 



	  	
UNDERSIGNED:


	  	/s/ John B. Hofman
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
John B. Hofman, President


	
 

	
Grote Molen, Inc
BROWN v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, et al.

429P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Richard B. Harper, Attorney at Law, Sylva, for Brown, Jacquelyn.

Donna B. Wojcik, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Public Instruction (Macon County Schools), et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of December 2017 by Plaintiff in the Alternative to Consider Petition for Discretionary Review a Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
PATRICK A. HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2781

Opinion filed September 11, 2014.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. Petitioner shall be allowed a belated 

appeal from the August 20, 2013, judgment and sentence in Leon County Circuit Court 

case number 2013 CF 57 A. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this 

opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notice of 

appeal. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, 

the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11282 Summary Calendar

KAMAL K. PATEL, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WAYNE PHILLIPS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CV-210

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kamal K. Patel, federal prisoner # 5 6 4 96-080, appeals from the order of the district court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 241. In t h e district court, Patel argued that his conviction and sentence violated A

pprendi v. New Jersey, 5 30 U

. S. 46 6 (2000). On appeal, he argues t hat h e s h o u l d not have been sentenced as an armed career criminal, pursuant to Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009), a nd Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008). U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 3, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11282 Document: 00512395680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2013No. 12-11282

We h a v e nothing to consider in this appeal. Patel raises the Chambers/ B egay a rgument for the first time on a ppeal, and w e d o not consider issues raised f

or t he first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 9 )

. Moreover, b y failing to raise the Apprendi issue in his appellate brief, Patel has a ban d o n ed it. See Cinel v. C onnick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Patel’s appeal is frivolous. The current § 2241 petition was not Patel’s first attempt to o btain relief pursuant to Apprendi or its progeny, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a nd h e has otherwise attempted to challenge his conviction on collateral review on several o ccasions. See In re Patel, N o. 11-50947, 1-2 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2012) (unpublished order d e n y i ng a u thorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion); I

n re Patel, No. 0 5

- 5 0674, 1-2 (5th Cir. July 19, 2005) (unpublished order denying authorization to f i l e a successive § 2255 motion based o n Booker) ; P

atel v. Morris, 37 F. App’x 428, 429-32 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirming order d enying relief under § 2241 based o n Apprendi ); In re Patel, No. 00-50980 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2000) (unpublished order denying authorization to file

a successive § 2255 motion based on A pprendi )

. Patel is WARNED that frivolous, r epetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary s anctions, and restrictions on h i s ability to file p leadings in this c o urt a nd any court subject to this c o u r t ’ s jurisdiction. A P P E AL D ISMISSED, see 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. SANCTION W AR N I N G ISSUED.

2 Case: 12-11282 Document: 00512395680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2013
EHMANN, et al. v. MEDFLOW, INC., et al.

433A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 9, 2018

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, C. Bailey King, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Medflow, Inc., et al.

Harold C. Spears, Attorney at Law, Christopher P. Raab, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Ehmann, Eugene K., et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 4th of April 2018 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed as to 30 day extension of time; Denied as to additional relief requested in paragraphs 7 and 8 of motion. By order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of April 2018."

*167Defendants shall have up to and including the 6th day of June 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Quiwaneca Spikes 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
STATE of North Carolina v. Byron Benson FULGHUM, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA17-334

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
# Official Journal C 137A/7 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 137A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 577 May 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 137A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 577 May 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 137A/01 | Reserve lists — Open competition — EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2014/C 137A/01

Reserve lists — Open competition — EPSO/AD/249/13 — Administrators (AD 7)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 137A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 3 |

2014/C 137A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-15877, 333-51681, 333-79579 and 333-102672) on Form S-8 and the registration
statement (No. 333-106615) on Form S-3 of Northfield Laboratories Inc. of our
report dated July 28, 2003, relating to the balance sheets of Northfield
Laboratories Inc. as of May 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of
operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended May 31, 2003 and for the cumulative period from
June 19, 1985 (inception) through May 31, 2003, which report appears in the May
31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Northfield Laboratories Inc. Our report
dated July 28, 2003, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the
Company has experienced recurring operating losses and has an accumulated
deficit at May 31, 2003. In addition, the Company expects to experience
significant future losses and currently has insufficient capital resources to
fund its continuing operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about
its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not
include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
August 8, 2003
1532.

#### Norton *v.*The State.

Accusation of misdemeanor, from DeKalb superior court- — -Judge Eoan. November 16, 1908.

Argued January 14,

Decided February 9, 1909.

*Candlers, Thomson & Ilirsch, B. L. D. McAllister, J. D. Kilpatrick, L. J. Steele, Asa Warren Candler,*for plaintiff in error.

*William Schley Howard, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. By section 114 of the Political Code it is made the duty of the managers of a primary election to count the votes “publicly.” By section 632 of the Penal Code a wilful violation of this duty is a misdemeanor. As to what would be “publicly,” see the case of *Tilton*v. State, ante, 59 (62 S. E. 651).

2. The other points presented are controlled by the decision this day rendered in *Norton v. State,*No. 1533, ante, 586 (63 S. E. 662).

*Judgment ajvrmed.*
STATE of North Carolina v. Darrell Wayne BAYSE, Defendant.

No. COA17-528

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Hooper, Also Known as Otis Hooper McGee, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 846]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered September 26, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

Exhibit 8.1       List of Subsidiaries

   1.       Telemar Norte Leste S.A.

   2.       TNL Net Participacoes S.A.

   3.       Tnext S.A.

   4.       HiCorp Comunicacoes Corporativas S.A.

   5.       TNL PCS S.A.

   6.       TNL.Acesso S.A.

   7.       Contax S.A.

   8.       Pegasus S.A.

         All subsidiaries are organized and incorporated under the laws of the
Federative Republic of Brazil.
#### Richard Frisch, Appellant, v Kathryn Abdelhak, Respondent.

[720 NYS2d 351]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for libel and slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated February 1, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated December 16, 1998, which, upon the defendant’s default in opposing his motion to compel certain discovery pursuant to CPLR 3124, directed that the answer be stricken unless the defendant provided certain discovery within 20 days.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the order dated December 16, 1998, is reinstated, and the answer is stricken.

By order dated December 16, 1998, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion to the extent of directing that the defendant’s answer be stricken unless she provided certain discovery within 20 days. The defendant failed to provide the requested discovery or a reasonable excuse for her failure to do so. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in granting her motion to vacate that order *(see, Cooper v P & T Gen. Contr. Corp.,*260 AD2d 423; *Szilaski v Aphrodite Constr. Co.,*247 AD2d 532; *Betancourth v Pacheco,*232 AD2d 442). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1737

JOHN YAW ANDOH, Beneficiary of a visa petition filed by Denise Ann 

Johnson,

Appellant.

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

DENISE ANN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary of 

the United States Department of Homeland Security; L. FRANCIS CISSNA, 

Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; CONRAD 

ZARAGOZA, USCIS Baltimore Field Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03317-RDB)

Submitted: February 14, 2019 Decided: March 7, 2019

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Steven Kreiss, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 

General, William C. Peachey, Director, J. Max Weintraub, Senior Litigation Counsel, C. 

Frederick Sheffield, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Denise Ann Johnson and John Yaw Andoh appeal the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing their complaint brought 

under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012). We affirm in part 

and dismiss in part.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Roland v. USCIS, 850 

F.3d 625, 628 (4th Cir. 2017). We are required “to apply the same legal standards the 

district court applied” in reaching its decision. Perez v. Cissna, 914 F.3d 846, 851 (4th 

Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a). 

Insofar as Johnson and Andoh seek review of the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ decision denying Johnson’s I-130 visa petition and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order denying the motion to reopen, we have reviewed the 

record and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. Johnson v. Sessions, No. 

1:15-cv-03317-RDB (D. Md. June 8, 2018). 

We dismiss the appeal from the Board’s order dismissing the appeal because the 

Appellants fail to challenge the Board’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(“Failure of a party in its opening brief to challenge an alternate ground for a district 

court’s ruling waives that challenge.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). 
4

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
STATE of North Carolina v. David Michael REED

No. 365A16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Reed, David Michael.

*850***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 2nd of February 2018 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 7th of June 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by State of NC on the 20th of February 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The State of NC'S new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dean Michael VARNER

No. 115PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed May 11, 2018

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, and Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by John F. Carella and Katherine Whitney Dickinson-Schultz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.