alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03382-HB Document 9 Filed 11/14/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03382-HB Document 9 Filed 11/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
D

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-2 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Guaranteed Fit

F.DQCTOR S

Dental Protector

For Night Time Teeth Grinding

CONTENTS:

Dental Protector, Container

!Zell eve the and Fitting Instructions

Large

Guaranteed Fit

Most of our customers are able

to obtain an excellent fit the

first time they try. However, if

you are not completely

satisfied with the fit and

comfort of this product, or if

you purchased the wrong size

for your mouth, please return

the unsatisfactory product to us

and well send you a new one

We offer this to provide you

with a comfortable and

effective dental protector.

We want you to have relief

from night time teeth grinding

and promise to make the

exchange as rapidly as possible

At the longest however, it may

take as much as 3 weeks to

process your request.

nightly grinds

NEW!

. MORE

COMFORTABLE

DOCTOR S

Large

009897

02150

EXHIBIT A

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-2 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Caution:

While The Doctor's NightGuard

may be similar in appearance

to athletic mouthguards, it is

not to be used for that purpose.

If you wear braces, dentures or

other dental appliances, talk

to your dentist before using

this product.

The Doctor's NightGuard is not

recommended for people who

experience "clicking" of the jaw

and/or have been diagnosed

with TIM problems. This is not

to be used by children under

12 years of age.

This product is not to be

used to diagnose, cure,

mitigate, treat or prevent

disease or other medical

condition, or to affect the

structure or function of

the body.

www.dentalconcepts.com

iV

FD0,,CTOF S

Nighty Guard for

Dental rTimtor

Nigh ht Time Teeth Grinding

Custom Fit in Minutes

The Doctor's NightGuard is similar to the dental protector recommended

by many dentists - only you do the fitting yourself in about five minutes.

Complete fitting instructions are

inside the package and there is

a toll-free number to call

for extra help.

Size Guidelines

Mouth size and body

type don't always

correspond but as a

general rule, choose

the size based on

the closest

description of

your height.

Small Medium Large

Men Under 5'6"Tall 5'6"-5'8" 5'8"+

Women Under 5' 4" Tall 5' 4" - 5' 7" 5' 7" +

The fitting process will allow for the necessary fine tuning.

© 2005 Dental Concepts Paramus,NJ 07652 Distributed by Dental Concepts

Patent #382,965,5,566,684 Made in U.S.A. P/N# NGLERBA-01

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-2 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7116
TONY A. MCFARLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-95-25-3) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 13, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony A. McFarlin, Appellant Pro Se. Scott E. Johnson, Dawn EllenWarfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tony McFarlin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McFarlin v. Trent , No. CA-95-25-3 (N.D.W. Va. July 17, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568(U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We further deny McFarlin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH     Document 40      Filed 01/30/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH     Document 40      Filed 01/30/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH     Document 40      Filed 01/30/2008     Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

..................................................................... X 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability 

Litigation, 1:06-md-1789 (JFK) Order ----------------------.------------.-- X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

...................................... x 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Section 2(a) of the Court's practices generally 

requires a pre-motion conference before a party may make any 

motion. This requirement is hereby waived with respect to 

motions to remand filed in this multi-district litigation because 

the jurisdictional issues typically raised by such motions can be 

resolved more efficiently without a conference. Accordingly, it 

is ORDERED that plaintiffs may file motions to remand without 

first requesting a pre-motion conference. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

November / 4, 2007 

\, 

JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03464-JFK Document 14 Filed 11/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD

No. 184 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 712.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-22 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 18 of 18
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 18, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________________

No. 07-10815

Non-Argument Calendar

__________________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-01170-CV-ORL-22DAB

ACTION SECURITY SERVICE, INC.,

a Florida corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMERICA ONLINE, INC.,

a foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

__________________________________

(July 18, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

The questions involved in this appeal are well set out in the Reports and

Recommendations of the magistrate judge and the district court’s dispositive order

of January 23, 2007. They are whether appellant failed to meet its burden of

apportioning the fees attributable to its defense of appellee’s civil theft claim – as

distinguished from appellee’s claims for negligence and conversion – and whether

the district court erred in determining that the compensable time appellant spent in

defense of the civil theft claim was excessive. 

Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court,

for the reasons stated in its dispositive order, that appellant failed to satisfy its

apportionment burden. As for the attorney’s fees, we find no error in the court’s

determination of the hourly rate.

AFFIRMED.
`Exhibit 32(b)

                                  CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  the  undersigned  officer  of
Decorize,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  hereby  certifies  that the Company's  Annual
Report on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended June 30, 2002 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Alex Budzinsky
----------------------------------------------------
Alex Budzinsky
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
December 5, 2003`
The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge 1

for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 96-1793

___________

David Hill, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 * Appeal from the United States

State of Iowa; Steve McCoy; * District Court for the

Michael Moorland; Sam Erhart, * Southern District of Iowa.

Judge; Clerk of Court of *

Wapello County; Wapello County * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sheriff's Department; Unnamed *

Defendants, Unknown Agents of *

Government/State, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 3, 1996

 Filed: May 3, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa prisoner David Hill appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint by the District Court for the Southern District 1

of Iowa. Hill complained he did not receive preliminary notice of a 1991

state replevin proceeding.

Upon initial review and before service of process, the district court

held that under Iowa law the cause of action accrued in 1991 when service

of the replevin notice gave Hill knowledge of all the facts supporting his

claim. The district court determined
-2-

the two-year Iowa statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 actions

barred the suit, concluded Hill's complaint lacked an arguable basis in

law, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and summarily dismissed the

complaint without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint under

§ 1915(d) when it is apparent the statute of limitations has run. Myers

v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). We agree Hill

knew all the facts supporting his claim upon service of replevin papers in

1991 and Iowa's applicable two-year statute of limitations barred his 1996

suit. See Wycoff v. Menke, 773 F.2d 983, 984 (8th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied, 475 U.S. 1028 (1986).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 21
 
 LIST
OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
 Symyx
Tools, Inc., incorporated in California and doing business under such
name.
 
 Symyx
Software, Inc., incorporated in Oregon and doing business under such
name.
 
 Symyx
Technologies International, Inc., incorporated in Delaware and doing business
under such name.
 
 Symyx
Technologies (France) SARL, incorporated in France and doing business under such
name.
 
 Symyx
Technologies (Germany) GmbH, incorporated in Germany and doing business under
such name.
 
 Symyx
Technologies (UK) Ltd, incorporated in United Kingdom and doing business under
such name.
 
 Symyx
Technologies Japan K.K., incorporated in Japan and doing business under such
name.
 
 Symyx
Technologies Europa AG, incorporated in Switzerland and doing business under
such name.
 
 MDL
Information Systems (Sweden) AB, incorporated in Sweden and doing business under
such name.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

ARTISTdirect, Inc.

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-122027,No. 333-53208, No. 333-38104, No. 333-63572 and No. 333-68396)on Forms S-8 of ARTISTdirect, Inc., of our report dated  March 28,2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARTISTdirect, Inc.and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficiencyand cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 ofARTISTdirect, Inc.

 
| /s/                       | Gumbiner Savett Inc. |   |
|---------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                      |                 |   |
|                      |                 |   |
| GUMBINER SAVETT INC.      |                 |
|                      |                 |
| Santa Monica,  California |                 |
| March 28, 2008       |                 |

 

----
#### Com. *v.*Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., Appellant.

*Taxation*— Corporations—Duty *of treasurer to retain tax*— Act *of June*30, 1885 *and June*8, 1891.

It is the duty of the treasurer of a corporation under the act of June 30, 1885, § 4, P. L. 193, to assess, retain and pay over to the state the tax imposed by the act of June 8, 1891, § 1, P. L. 229, on so much of its indebtedness as is held and owned by residents of Pennyslvania, and if he fails to do so the corporation is liable.

*624Argued May 29, 1894.

Appeal, No. 37, July T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., June T., 1893, No. 366, on trial by court without jury.

Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from tax settlement.

The facts were substantially the same as those of the preceding case.

*William B. Lamberton,*for appellant.

*W U. Hensel,*attorney general, *James A.*Stranahan, deputy attorney general, with him, for the commonwealth.

July 11, 1894:

Per Curiam,

This case depends upon the proper construction of the act of June 8, 1891, and is ruled by Commonwealth v. Wilkes-Barre & Scranton Railway Co., Apt., No. 19 of this term [the preceding case.] In that case the judgment of the common pleas has just been affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of that court; and, inasmuch as the questions presented in both cases are substantially the same, the judgment in this case should be affirmed for the reasons given at length in said opinion.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-36910, 333-36912, 333-36914, 333-36918, 333-36934, 333-40904, 333-63012 and
333-63022 of T/R Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 3, 2003,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of T/R Systems, Inc. for the year
ended January 31, 2003.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Atlanta, GA
April 17, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1913 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1913

   To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a bollard 
          installation grant program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2019

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a bollard 
          installation grant program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stopping Threats On Pedestrians Act 
of 2019'' or the ``STOP Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. BOLLARD INSTALLATION GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Bollard installation project.--The term ``bollard 
        installation project'' means a project to install raised 
        concrete or metal posts on a sidewalk adjacent to a roadway 
        that are designed to slow or stop a motor vehicle.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Transportation.
    (b) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and carry out a 
competitive grant program to provide assistance to local government 
entities for bollard installation projects designed to prevent 
pedestrian injuries and acts of terrorism in areas used by large 
numbers of pedestrians.
    (c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
section, a local government entity shall submit to the Secretary an 
application at such time, in such form, and containing such information 
as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, which shall include, at 
a minimum--
            (1) a description of the proposed bollard installation 
        project to be carried out;
            (2) a description of the pedestrian injury or terrorism 
        risks with respect to the proposed installation area; and
            (3) an analysis of how the proposed bollard installation 
        project will mitigate those risks.
    (d) Use of Funds.--A recipient of a grant under this section may 
only use the grant funds for a bollard installation project.
    (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of a bollard 
installation project carried out with a grant under this section may be 
up to 100 percent.
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2020 through 2029.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23086]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R04-OAR-2005-KY-0001-200521(c); FRL-7999-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky; Redesignation of 
the Christian County, Kentucky Portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 
8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On October 21, 2005, at 70 FR 61232, EPA published a 
withdrawal action of a direct final rule approving the redesignation of 
the Christian County, Kentucky portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 
8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for ozone. This document 
corrects a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) reference contained in the 
withdrawal action.

DATES: This correction is effective November 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sean Lakeman, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number 
is (404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail 
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is making a correction to the document 
published October 21, 2005 (70 FR 61232), which withdrew the direct 
final rule published September 22, 2005, (70 FR 55550) approving the 
redesignation of the Christian County, Kentucky portion of the 
Clarksville-Hopkinsville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment 
for ozone. EPA is correcting the citation to the CFR contained in the 
October 21, 2005, withdrawal action to exclude an erroneous reference 
to 40 CFR 52.919. The last paragraph after the signature block on page 
61232 should read as follows: ``Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 
52.920 and 40 CFR 81.318 (which published in the Federal Register on 
September 22, 2005, at 70 FR 55550) is withdrawn as of October 21, 
2005.''

    Dated: November 15, 2005.
J.I. Palmer Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05-23086 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00296

- CR

Oscar Escobar a/k/a Oscar Escobar Jr. v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 186th District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021CR0790

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, ha ving considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 27 , 2024
Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03480-AKH Document 10 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### SHOPPING CENTER v. LIFE INSURANCE CORP.

No. 311 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 633.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.