alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-30455

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRANCE D. GLASPIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CR-20098-1)

June 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Terrance D. Glaspie, Defendant-Appellant, appeals his jury-verdict conviction and sentence

for aiding and abetting another person to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues

for the first time on appeal that one witness’s testimony against him at trial was improper pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) because it was given in exchange fo r leniency by the Government. We,

however, have previously rejected such an argument. S ee United States v. Haese

, 162 F.3d 359, 366-

67 (5th Cir. 1998), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Apr. 15, 1999) (No. 98-9005).

Glaspie also contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress

incriminating post-arrest statements he made to FBI agents after waiving his rights under Miranda

v. Arizona

, 384 U.S. 436, 88 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), because the statements were not-2-

voluntary and, therefore, were inadmissable under F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(e)(6) and F ED

. R. E VID

. 410.

After considering the factors set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

, 412 U.S. 218, 225-26 (1973),

we conclude that Glaspie’s statements “were the product of h is free and rational choice.” U nited

States v. Restre

po , 994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, because Glaspie was not

negotiating an actual plea with a government attorney, his statements were not inadmissable under

F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(e)(6) and F ED

. R. E VID . 410. See United States v. Robertson , 582 F.2d 1356,

1368 (5th Cir. 1978).

Glaspie also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence

seized from his girlfriend’s automobile. We conclude that Glaspie did not have standing to contest

the search of the vehicle because he did not establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.

See United States v. Riazco , 91 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14758-14759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6704]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR Part 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

Apollo Stevendoring Company, Inc., dba Jason Shipping Company, 13251 
Eastern Ave., Palmetto, FL 34221, Officers: Edward E. Sheffield, 
President; Joan E. Sheffield, Secretary
Alfa Cargo Forwarders Corp., 500 Bayview Drive, #1027, North Miami, FL 
33160, Officers: Carlos A. Cavanzo, President; Santiago Hermida, Vice 
President
Red Hot Transportation, 581 Maple Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066, 
Officers: Greg Lowery, Partner; Gina Fregosi, Partner
Amerasa Rapid Transit USA Inc., 1440 Broadway, Suite 606, Oakland, CA 
94612, Officers: Richard J. Eber, President; Li Bin, Stockholder.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.

    [[Page 14759]] By the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6704 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### William COOPER, Appellant, v. Teresa THORNBURG, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 50175.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 30, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 1, 1995.

William Cooper, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Randell G. Collins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from order dismissing *pro se*petition for injunctive relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4390 

To require summary approval information with respect to certain approved 

drugs and biological products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2022 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require summary approval information with respect to 

certain approved drugs and biological products. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accelerated Approval 

5 Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUMMARY APPROVAL INFORMATION. 

7 With respect to each new drug application for a new 

8 molecular entity approved under section 505(c) of the 

9 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(c)) 

10 or biological product licensed under section 351(a) of the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4390 IS

1 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)) pursuant 

2 to accelerated approval under section 506(c) of the Fed3 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 356(c)), 

4 the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide 

5 for the drug or biologic action package a summary of the 

6 basis for approval, including, as relates to such new molec7 ular entity, whether an advisory committee meeting was 

8 held and a rationale for a determination by the Secretary 

9 that a surrogate endpoint is reasonably likely to predict 

10 clinical benefit. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6779]



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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determination

    Notice is hereby given of the following determination: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects in the 
exhibit, ``Arshile Gorky: The Breakthrough Years'' (see list\1\) 
imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also 
determine that the temporary exhibition of the objects at The National 
Gallery, Washington, DC, from on or about May 7, 1995, to on or about 
September 17, 1995, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, NY, from on 
or about October 13, 1995, to on or about December 31, 1995, and at the 
Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, Forth Worth, Texas, from on or about 
January 13, 1996, to on or about March 17, 1996, is in the national 
interest.

    \1\A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Neila 
Sheahan of the Office of the General Counsel of USIA. The telephone 
number is 202/619-5030, and the address is Room 700, U.S. 
Information Agency, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public notice of this determination is ordered to be published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-6779 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Exhibit 23.1   GRAPHIC  CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 of HF Financial Corp. (333-103138, 333-83940,
333-50299 and 333-50313) pertaining to the HF Financial Corp. 2002 Stock Option
and Incentive Plan, the Retirement Savings Plan, the 1991 Stock Option and
Incentive Plan, and the 1996 Director Restricted Stock Plan of our report dated
September 10, 2010, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and
internal controls included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HF
Financial Corp. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.   Sioux Falls, South Dakota September 10, 2010  GRAPHIC
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

y0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139334(40) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139334 

 COA: 284227 

Oakland CC: 07-217354-FH 

TIMOTHY LAWRENCE WATT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 26, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Dietary Prevention of Obesity-related Disease Research: Grand Forks, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Grand Forks, North Dakota Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center Dietary Prevention of Obesity-related Disease Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30667

Summary Calendar

TOMMY K. CRYER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 5:07-CV-2206

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy Cryer sued the government, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7431, for alleged wrongful disclosures of tax return information in violation of id. § 6103.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 4, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30667

2

The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim, mainly on the ground thatthe information allegedly disclosed is not “return information” as intended by the statute.

The district court explained its reasons in a careful “Memorandum Ruling”

entered on May 13, 2008. We agree with the analysis in that opinion. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4340 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4340

To allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny approval of 
  a new drug application for an opioid analgesic drug on the basis of 
such drug not being clinically superior to other commercially available 
                                 drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2022

Mr. Manchin (for himself and Mr. Braun) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny approval of 
  a new drug application for an opioid analgesic drug on the basis of 
such drug not being clinically superior to other commercially available 
                                 drugs.

    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 ``Ensuring the FDA Fully Examines 
Clinical Trial Impact and Vitalness before Endorsement Act'' or the 
``EFFECTIVE Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL OF NEW OPIOID ANALGESICS.

    Section 505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 355(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the 
Secretary may deny approval of an application submitted under 
subsection (b) for an opioid analgesic drug if the Secretary determines 
that such drug does not provide a significant advantage or clinical 
superiority, in terms of greater safety or effectiveness, compared to 
an appropriate comparator drug, as determined by the Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CORA EDWARDS, Administratrix of MARION EDWARDS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Others.

(Filed 2 March, 1938.)

Carriers § 22—

Nonsuit *held*proper in action against railroad company upon evidence showing that intestate was a trespasser upon a train and fell therefrom to his death, without evidence that his fall was caused by any wrongful and willful act of the railroad company or its employees.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Smk, J.,*at October-November Term, 1937, of SwaiN. Affirmed.

*213This is an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate.

At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the defendants moved that the action be dismissed by judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was .allowed hy the court.

From judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error in the judgment.

*Edwards & Leatherwood for plaintiff.*

*Jones, Ward & Jones and W. T. Joyner for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

This action was heard in this Court at Fall Term, 1937, ou the appeal of the defendant Southern Railway Company from an order of the Superior Court of Swain County, denying its petition for the removal of the action from the Superior Court of Swain County to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for trial. The order was affirmed. See *Edwards v. R. R.,*212 N. C., 61.

At the trial of the action in the Superior Court of Swain County, all the evidence showed that at the time plaintiff’s intestate fell from the defendant’s train, he was riding on said train as a trespasser. There was no evidence tending to show that his fall from defendant’s train was caused by any wrongful and willful act of the defendant Southern Railway Company, or of any of its employees. The judgment dismissing the action is affirmed. See *Bailey v. R. R.,*149 N. C., 169, 62 S. E., 883; *Hayes v. R. R.,*141 N. C., 195, 53 S. E., 847; *Cook v. R. R.,*128 N. C., 333, 38 S. E., 925.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1





Ener1,
      Inc.


500
      West
      Cypress Creek Road, Suite 100


Ft.
      Lauderdale, Florida, 33309





March
      11,
      2008





Securities
      and Exchange Commission


100
      F
      Street, NE


Washington,
      DC 20549





Re:
      Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350





Dear
      Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
      connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1, Inc.,
      for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission, I, Dr. Peter Novak, Chief Executive Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)
            such
                annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1, Inc., for the year ended December
                31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                15(d) of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                and





2)
            the
                information contained in such annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ener1,
                Inc.,
                for the year ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ener1,
                Inc.





/s/
                Dr. Peter NovakDr.
                Peter Novak
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and
              Duly
                Authorized Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
      retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.





This
      certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc.’s annual
      report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
      liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference
      in
      any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
      expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
#### KIENSTRA, INC., d/b/a Chris Kienstra Concrete, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. TERRA CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant. and Harold C. Lewis and Jill M. Lewis, Defendants/Appellants.

No. 63467.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 8, 1994.

Nelson Lewis Mitten, Sherry Gunn, Clayton, for defendants/appellants.

Michael Allen, R.W. Jacobsmeyer, Clayton, for plaintifl7respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this bench-tried case, Harold and Jill Lewis appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting Kienstra a mechanic’s lien against their property.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
| FIRST: | At a meeting of the Board of Directors duly held on November 23, 2010, the Board of Directors of the Corporation approved an amendment to the Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation increasing the number of shares of common stock authorized by the Corporation to 300,000,000. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| SECOND: | Article IV(a) of the Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | a. | the total number of shares of capital stock authorized to be issued by this corporation shall be: |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| THIRD: | Except as hereby amended, the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall remain the same. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| FOURTH:  | These Articles of Amendment shall be effective as of the date and time of filing. |
|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| FIFTH: | These Articles of Amendment have been approved and adopted by shareholders of the Corporation holding a majority of the votes entitled to be cast at the Company’s annual shareholder’s meeting held on December 16, 2010. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ener1, Inc.              |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |
| /S/ Charles Gassenheimer |   |
| Charles Gassenheimer     |   |
| Chief Executive Officer  |   |

----