alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. TODD

No. 143P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 116.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, SBIR Topics 204: Plant Genomic Models for Establishing Physiological Relevance.                    

*Date:*                         March 15, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Joyce C. Pegues, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd. 7149, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/594-1286,                         *peguesj@mail.nih.gov.*

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

Dated: February 2, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-2357 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000059684
<NAME>                        UNITED LEISURE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         396,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,556
<PP&E>                                       2,074,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,450,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,442,866
<BONDS>                                        842,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       139,188
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,026,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,450,085
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,342,310
<CGS>                                        1,433,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,433,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             191,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,885,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,885,331)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,885,331)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.14)
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. CARVER

No. 74 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 674.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 24 September 1974.
#### BENTON v. CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 111 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 421.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 24 January 1978.
CAP the NOISE

To Save

Your Hearing!

Once you have lost hearing due to noise, it’s permanent and cannot be reversed. 

Because there’s no pain or visible damage, you may not notice hearing loss right away.

Every time you are exposed to noise, your risk of hearing loss increases.

If you have hearing loss, you may experience: 

> Difficulty hearing warning signals and equipment sounds

> Trouble understanding what someone is saying

> Accidents and lost productivity

> Ringing or buzzing in the ears

> Sounds seeming dull or flat after leaving a noisy area

> Headaches, tiredness, stress, and a feeling of isolation 

You don’t have to lose your hearing.

CAP the NOISE

1. CONTROL the noise at its source (Engineering Controls)

2. AVOID the noise source (Administrative Controls) 

3. PROTECT your ears (Hearing Protection Devices)

What you can do when you are exposed to hazardous noise

A

P

CONTROL

VOID

noise at the source

noise sources

your ears ROTECT

CAPthe NOISE

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Today, more than 150,000 miners have some hearing loss. 

By age 60, more than 75% of coal miners have a

hearing impairment from exposure to noise.
How you can CONTROL the noise at its source

> Use feasible noise controls such as enclosures, coated chains, and isolators

> Maintain and lubricate equipment

> Tell management about worn/broken noise controls and noisy machinery

> Use barriers or enclosures for work areas

> Clean and maintain fan silencers

> Replace or repair defective mufflers

How you can AVOID the noise

> Use remote controls for machine operation

> Limit time in noisy areas by rotating with other workers 

> Turn off equipment when it’s not in use 

> Avoid sitting idle in equipment in noisy areas

> Perform cleanup and maintenance during machine down times

How you can PROTECT your ears

> Wear hearing protection (muffs and/or plugs) when you must be exposed to 

noise

 Keeping 

 your 

 hearing 

 is easy.

Coated flight bar chain 

on a continuous 

mining machine 

Collapsible drill steel 

enclosure on a roof 

bolting machine

How Can You

CAP the NOISE?

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2011-102

To receive documents or other information about occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH 

at: 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) • 1-888-232-6348 (TTY) • e-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov or 

visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh.

A

P

CONTROL

VOID

noise at the source

noise sources

your ears

ROTECT

CAPthe NOISE

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Earplug worn for 

hearing protection
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-05-044] 

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# Time and Date:

December 7, 2005 at 11 a.m. 

# Place:

Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status:

Open to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1098 (Preliminary) (Liquid Sulfur Dioxide from Canada)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 8, 2005; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 15, 2005.) 

5. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-639 and 640 (Second Review) (Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India and Taiwan)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 16, 2005.) 

                        6.                         *Outstanding action jackets:*                         None.                     

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 29, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05-23574 Filed 11-29-05; 2:43 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### P. H. BELL v. LILLIAN E. PRICE and Husband JOHN A. PRICE.

(Filed 23 September, 1964.)

Appeal and Error § 24—

An exception to the charge on the ground that the court failed to charge the applicable law as required by statute is ineffectual as a broadside exception.

Appeal by defendants from *Bundy, J.,*May 4, 1964 Session of Beau-FORT.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover compensation for services rendered defendants, at their request, in a condemnation proceeding instituted by the Highway Commission against defendants. He alleges defendants agreed to pay fair and reasonable compensation for the services rendered; as a result of the services rendered, defendants obtained a judgment against the Highway Commission for $1,000.00.

Defendants denied they employed plaintiff to represent them in the condemnation proceeding, or that he rendered any services in that litigation. They allege they employed plaintiff to represent them in other litigation and, for the services there rendered, he has been fully compensated.

Appropriate issues were submitted to the jury. It found defendants had employed plaintiff, as he alleged, and fixed the reasonable and fair value of his services at $333.33. Judgment was entered on the verdict. Defendants, having excepted, appealed.

*Earl Whitted, Jr., for appellants.*

*Bailey & Bailey for plaintiff appellee.*

PeR Ctjeiam.

The only exception assigned as error reads: “The defendants further except and object to the CHARGE OF THE COURT for the reason that the Court failed and neglected to Charge the Jury as to the LAW OF THE CASE as would be applied to the case at bar as the Court was required to do as specifically set out in G.S. 1-180.”

The exception does not indicate what legal question was presented and not covered in the charge. The pleadings and testimony show no complicated legal questions were presented. The rights of the parties were dependent on the answers which the jury should give to simple factual questions. The exception is broadside and, for that reason, insufficient. *Clifton v. Turner,*257 N.C. 92, 125 S.E. 2d 339; *Darden v. Bone,*254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E. 2d 634.

No error.
#### STATE v. GOSS and STATE v. BRADSHER

No. 83 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 592.

Petition by defendant Goss for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 April 1976.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0151

SCOTT LARSEN AND KAREN 

LARSEN,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

KEITH SAYERS AND DANIELLE 

SAYERS,

 Defendants and Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

Pursuant to Appellants’ motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants are granted an extension of time 

up to and including September 10, 2024, in which to file their reply brief in this 

matter.

No further extensions will be granted.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 20 2024

08/20/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0151
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 1 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 2 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 3 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 4 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 5 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 6 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 7 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 8 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 9 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 10 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 11 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 12 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 13 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 14 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 15 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 16 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 17 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 18 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 19 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 20 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 21 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 22 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 23 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 24 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 25 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 26 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 27 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 28 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03343-RMB Document 11-7 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 29 of 29
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03542-LAK Document 9 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 9 of 9
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT J. DILLON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv22-RH/WCS

EDWIN G. BUSS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before 

the court on the magistrate judge‟s report and recommendation, ECF No. 28, and 

the objections, ECF No. 31. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the 

objections. The report and recommendation is correct and is adopted as the court's 

opinion. 

The petitioner has moved for a certificate of appealability, and Rule 11 of 

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a district court to “issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A 

certificate of appealability may be issued only if a petitioner “has made a 

Case 4:10-cv-00022-RH-WCS Document 33 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv22-RH/WCS

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

2253(c)(2). See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003) (explaining the 

meaning of this term); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (same); 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 

U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a § 2254 petition 

on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

 To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing 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 “„adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further.‟” 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84, quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4. Further, in order 

to obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural 

grounds, a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

The petitioner has not made the required showing. 

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED. 

Case 4:10-cv-00022-RH-WCS Document 33 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv22-RH/WCS

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The petition is DENIED with 

prejudice.” 

3. The motion for a certificate of appealability, ECF No. 32, is DENIED.

4. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 9, 2011.

Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00022-RH-WCS Document 33 Filed 09/12/11 Page 3 of 3
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141453-5

ROBERT RIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141453-5 COA: 290771, 293218, 293831 Saginaw CC: 07-063214-CL JACK B. ANDERSON and ANDERSON NWTT, L.L.C., d/b/a NORTHERN WHOLESALE TRAILERS RV WORLD USA, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000059479
<NAME>                        Lilly Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         16,850
<SECURITIES>                                   81,860
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                   50,114
<INVENTORY>                                    155,847
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               97,024
<PP&E>                                         59,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                 515,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 90,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          97,024
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       97,546
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     60,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   515,969
<SALES>                                        461,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               461,877
<CGS>                                          284,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  409,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                38,843
<INCOME-TAX>                                   16,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   22,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .96
        


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan


## September 26, 2006

131019

CHRISTINE THOMAS, Plaintiff,

v
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/ SC: 131019 AGC: 3204/05 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



## On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.

p0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 26, 2006
Clerk
#### STATE v. COURSON

No. 102 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 268.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 December 1975. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu 2 December 1975.