alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
John Keely HOWARD and Wife, Cynthia Hicklin Hammond, Plaintiffs, v. ORTHOCAROLINA, P.A.; Alfred L. Rhyne, III, M.D.; Faisal A. Siddiqui, M.D.; Theodore A. Belanger, M.D., Defendants.

No. COA18-71

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Neonatal Research Network.                    

*Date:*                         November 3-4, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rita Anand, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd. Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1487,                         *anandr@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 5, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-20745  Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 1 4 , 2014

No. 04

- 13

- 00414

- CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Matthew David Avans, Appellee

Trial Court Case No. CR121253



## ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for ora l argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on February 4, 2014, to the following panel: Justice Barnard, Justice Martinez, and Justice Alvarez. All parties will be notified of the Court’s decision in this appeal in accordanc e with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.

Either party may file a motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8. Such a motion should be filed within ten (10) days from

the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on January 1 4 , 2014.

______________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this January 1 4 , 2014.

______________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Order filed, March 8, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 18

- 00143

- CV

____________
IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF TIMOTHY WAYNE STO NECIPHER , Appellant

V.

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 608785Z



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due January 16, 2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
remailing portion of the record. The complete record has not been filed with the

court. Because the complete r eporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue
the following order.We order Gail Rolen, the court reporter, to file the remaining portions of the

record in this appeal within 1 0 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.2 - Certification of Chief Executive Officer

                             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 Annual Report of Trezac International Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul Taylor, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
     the Registrant.

/s/  Paul Taylor
----------------------------
     Paul Taylor
     Chief Executive Officer
     Chief Financial Officer
     June 27, 2003

<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5014 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans 
          Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT CONSTITUTES MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 
              COVERAGE.

    (a) In General.--Clause (v) of section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is amended to read as 
follows:
                            ``(v) a health care program under chapter 
                        17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, as 
                        determined by the Secretary of Veterans 
                        Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of 
                        Health and Human Services and the Secretary,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 12, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans 
          Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage.
```
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 
 EVERYWARE, INC. 
  

 
 SALE OF THE
COMPANY BONUS PLAN 
  
  

AWARD NOTICE 
 March     , 2012 
 «Participant_Name» 

«Address_1» 

«City_State_Zip» 
 Dear
«Participant_Name»: 
 The purpose of this award notice (this “Award Notice”) is to inform you that
you have been granted an award (the “Award”) under the EveryWare, Inc. (the “Company”) Sale Bonus Plan (the “Plan”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
thereto under the Plan. The Award Percentage for the Award is «Percentage»%. The payment of any Bonus Amount in respect of the Award will be subject in all respects to your continued employment with the Company or its Subsidiaries on the
date of consummation of a Sale of the Company (as defined in the Plan) and the date of payment of any portion of the Bonus Amount payable after the date of consummation of such Sale of the Company, to the extent any portion of the Bonus Amount
becomes payable after the date of such Sale of the Company due to a Subsequent Increase. This Award Notice and the Award hereunder are subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the Plan. If and to the extent that this Award Notice
conflicts or is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Plan, the Plan shall govern and control. The Plan and this Award Notice contain the entire understanding between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter hereof, and
supersede any and all prior agreements between you and the Company with respect thereto. 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 I hereby acknowledge that (i) I have received and reviewed a copy of the Plan, and (ii) this Award Notice,
the Award and my participation in the Plan are subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the Plan. 
  

					
	  
	 		 	Dated:             , 2012
	«Participant_Name»	 		 	








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Award Notice as of the date first
written above. 
  

			
	EVERYWARE, INC.
		
	By:	 	  

		
	Name:	 	  

		
	Title:	 	  



 Signature Page to EveryWare Sale Bonus Award Notice
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 487 

To waive the 35-mile requirement for designation of a critical access hospital 

under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2009 

Mr. SKELTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To waive the 35-mile requirement for designation of a critical 

access hospital under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 35-MILE REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGNATION OF 

4 A CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL UNDER THE 

5 MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

6 Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or 

7 after July 1, 2009, the requirement of subclause (I) of 

8 section 1820(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 487 IH

1 U.S.C. 1395i–4(c)(2)(B)(i)) is deemed to have been met 

2 by one hospital that is located in Osceola, Missouri. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY DALE MARSHALL

No. 7125SC106

(Filed 28 April 1971)

1. Criminal Law § 18 — jurisdiction of superior court to try defendant on warrant of district court

The superior court has no jurisdiction to try an accused for a misdemeanor on the warrant of the district court unless he is first tried and convicted for such misdemeanor in the district court and appeals to the superior court from sentence pronounced against him by the district court.

2. Criminal Law § 157 — failure of record to show jurisdiction

The Court of Appeals will take notice *ex mero motu*of the failure of the record to show jurisdiction in the court entering the judgment appealed from.

3. Criminal Law § 154 — record on appeal — duty of appellant

It is the duty of defendant appellant to see that the record on appeal is properly made up and transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

4. Criminal Law §§ 146, 157 — dismissal of appeal — failure to show jurisdiction of superior court

Appeal is dismissed for failure of the record to show the jurisdiction of the superior court.

*201Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*21 September 1970 Session of Caldwell Superior Court.

The record before us discloses the following: A warrant was issued from the District Court of Caldwell County charging defendant with driving a vehicle on the highways of Caldwell County while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of G.S. 20-138. Defendant was tried in superior court on said warrant, was found guilty by a jury, and from judgment imposed on the verdict, he appealed to this court.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Henry T. Rosser for the State.*

*Ted S. Douglas for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

[1-4] The record filed in this court fails to disclose how the superior court obtained jurisdiction of this case. The superior court has no jurisdiction to try an accused for a misdemeanor on the warrant of the district court unless he is first tried and convicted for such misdemeanor in the district court and appeals to the superior court from sentence pronounced against him by the district court. *State v. Byrd, 4*N.C. App. 672, 167 S.E. 2d 522 (1969). The Court of Appeals will take notice *ex mero motu*of the failure of the record to show jurisdiction in the court entering the judgment appealed from. It is the duty of defendant appellant to see that the record on appeal is properly made up and transmitted to the Court of Appeals. *State v. Byrd, supra.*For failure of the record to show jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. *State v. Banks,*241 N.C. 572, 86 S.E. 2d 76 (1955).

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record that is before us, with particular reference to the questions argued in defendant’s brief, but conclude that no error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial appears.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John C. Malone, certify that:
1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Liberty Media International, Inc.;
2.      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 quarterly report;
3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in thisquarterly 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 quarterlyreport;
4.      The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
           b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and
           c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.      The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 function):
           a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability 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: May 13, 2005
/s/ John C. Malone___
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20616]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-056-05-1610-DR-011H; HAG 05-155]


Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Upper 
Deschutes Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS)

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) policies, the BLM announces the availability of the Record of 
Decision (ROD) for the Upper Deschutes RMP located in Klamath, 
Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson counties in Central Oregon. The Oregon/
Washington State Director has approved the RMP/ROD, which becomes 
effective immediately.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Upper Deschutes RMP/ROD are available upon 
request from the Prineville District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 
3050 NE Third St., Prineville, Oregon 97754 or via the Internet at 
http://www.or.blm.gov/prineville/ or by calling (541) 416-6700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teal Purrington, Project Manager, BLM, 
Prineville District Office, 3050 NE., Third St., Prineville, Oregon 
97754 or at (541) 416-6700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Upper Deschutes RMP/ROD was developed 
with broad public participation through a four-year collaborative 
planning process. This RMP/ROD addresses management of approximately 
400,000 acres of public land in Central Oregon. The Upper Deschutes 
RMP/ROD is designed to achieve or maintain desired future conditions 
developed through the planning process. It includes a series of 
management actions to meet the desired resource conditions for upland 
and riparian vegetation, wildlife habitats, cultural and visual 
resources, livestock grazing, special forest products, minerals and 
mineral materials, military use, recreation, land classifications and 
rights-of-way, and travel management.
    With one exception, the approved Upper Deschutes RMP is essentially 
the same as Alternative 7 in the Proposed Upper Deschutes RMP and Final 
EIS, published in January 2005. The BLM received 16 protests on the 
Proposed Upper Deschutes RMP and Final EIS. In response to protests, a 
decision was made to allow ``geocaching'' activities within Wilderness 
Study Areas under specific monitoring and mitigation measures described 
in the RMP.

    Dated: August 3, 2005.
James G. Kenna,
Associate State Director, Oregon/Washington BLM.
[FR Doc. 05-20616 Filed 10-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 14, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODERICK WALKER, a/k/a “Rudd”,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-5125

(D.C. Nos. 07-CV-00551-CVE-FHM

and 04-CR-00099-CVE-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before O’BRIEN, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

We must decide whether to grant a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) to

Roderick Walker, a federal prisoner, in order to permit his appeal from the district

court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A COA will not issue unless the applicant makes a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, Mr. Walker must demonstrate that “reasonable

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should

have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
1

 Mr. Walker also seeks to raise new claims before us, but we will not

entertain arguments not presented to the district court in the first instance.

Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935, 940 (10th Cir. 2004). 

- 2 -

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). Our inquiry does not require a “full

consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of [the applicant’s]

claims,” but, rather, “an overview of the claims . . . and a general assessment of

their merits.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

Mr. Walker is a pro se litigant, so we construe his pleadings and other

papers with solicitude. Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th

Cir. 2007). Before the district court, he raised some eighteen separate claims of

ineffective assistance on the part of both his trial and appellate lawyers.1

 In an

exhaustive and thoughtful thirty-six page opinion, the district court rejected each

of Mr. Walker’s constitutional claims. After reviewing the record, we conclude

no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the district court’s disposition. 

Accordingly, and for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we

deny Mr. Walker’s application for a COA. The appeal is dismissed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge