alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 135839 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135839 COA: 280801 St. Joseph CC: 03-011531-FH JOHN RICHARD DUGAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting statement in People v Houlihan , 480 Mich 1165 (2008).

d0616 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.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge 2

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

 

No. 96-2755

 

Shawsy Jones, *

 * 

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

 * 

General American Life * [UNPUBLISHED]

Insurance Company, * 

 * 

Appellant. *

 

Submitted: January 17, 1997

Filed: February 13, 1997

 

Before MURPHY, Circuit Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge,

and KYLE, District Judge. 1

 

PER CURIAM.

Shawsy Jones (“Jones”) appeals from the district court’s2

order upholding General American Life Insurance Company’s (“General

American”) decision to deny her claim for total disability benefits

under an employee benefit plan it administered. 

Jones raises two arguments on appeal. She alleges that the

district court erred in affirming General American’s decision as it

was not supported by substantial evidence. She also argues, for the
-2-

first time, that the district court applied an incorrect standard

of review. While the district court applied a deferential standard
-3-

of review to General American’s determination because the benefit

plan granted administrator discretion, see Donaho v. FMC Corp., 74

F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 1996), Jones contends the court should have

utilized a higher standard of review due to an alleged conflict of

interest between General American’s “profit motive” and Jones’

“entitlement to benefits.” See Buttram v. Central States S.E. &

S.W. Health & Welfare Fund, 76 F.3d 896, 900, n.6 (8th Cir. 1996)

(noting that when conflict of interest exists, “the resulting

decision may be accorded stricter scrutiny”).

An appellant must adhere to the theory upon which the case was

tried below, and we will “refuse to consider a question which is

raised for the first time on appeal and which was never presented

to, or passed upon by the trial court.” Ludwig v. Marion Labs., 465

F.2d 114, 116 (8th Cir. 1972); see also Kirk v. St. Joseph Stock

Yards Co., 206 F.2d 283, 287 (8th Cir. 1953). Jones’ argument

regarding the proper standard of review was not raised in the

district court, and thus we will not consider it here.

We have reviewed de novo the district court’s application of

the deferential standard of review of General American’s

determination. See Bolling v. Eli Lilly & Co., 990 F.2d 1028, 1029

(8th Cir. 1993). We find that the district court, in a thorough and

well-reasoned opinion, properly concluded that General American’s

decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

 ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 72-6192.

#### Stevison *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 2, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

ANNABEL DOBBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 08-6018 WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------------------------- PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA; PRODUCT LIABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL, INC.; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amici Curiae.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (NO. 5:04-CV-01762-D)
David Charles Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Anderson Vickery, Vickery, Waldner & Mallia, L.L.P., Houston, TX and Earl Landers Vickery, Austin, TX, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant. Malcolm Edward Wheeler, Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, L.L.P., Denver, CO (Mark Herrmann, Jones Day, Chicago, IL; Thomas G. Wolfe and Douglas M. Todd,- 2 - Phillips, McFall, McCaffrey, McVay & Murrah, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK; and David Booth Alden, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, with him on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee. Robert A. Long, Jr., Michael X. Imbroscio, Paul W. Schmidt, and Erika F. Lietzan, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in support of Defendant-Appellee. Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Reston VA; Kenneth S. Geller and David M. Gossett, Mayer Brown, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; and Robin S. Conrad and Amar D. Sarwal, National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., Washington D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of Defendant-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, and HENRY and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

HENRY , Circuit Judge.
Annabel Dobbs has alleged that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals failed to adequately label its antidepressant Effexor to warn of suicide risk, and that this failure to warn caused her husband’s 2002 suicide while he was taking Effexor. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Wyeth, holding that Ms. Dobbs’s failure to warn claim against Wyeth was preempted by federal law. After the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court established a new standard for a federal preemption defense against a failure to warn claim, holding that the pharmaceutical company must demonstrate “clear evidence” that the Food and Drug Administration would have rejected a label change had the pharmaceutical- 3 - company unilaterally strengthened its drug’s warning label. See Wyeth v. Levine , 129 S. Ct. 1187, 1198 (2009). Accordingly, we must VACATE the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Wyeth and REMAND the case to the district court. On remand, the district court should first afford the parties the opportunity to submit additional evidence. Then, the district court should reconsider the preemption issue in light of Levine ’s new “clear evidence” standard.
#### LEVINE v. CHAVEZ, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5267-N-01] 

# AGENCY:

Office of the Deputy Secretary, HUD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of appointments. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announces the appointments of Ronald Y. Spraker and Jon L. Gant as members; and Dominique G. Blom as an alternate member of the Departmental Performance Review Board. The address is: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0050. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons desiring any further information about the Performance Review Board and its members may contact Earnestine Pruitt, Director, Executive Personnel Management Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 708-1381. (This is not a toll-free number.) 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Roy A. Bernardi, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-24371 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY D. BERRYMAN,

THE TEMPLE OF THE UNVEILED GOD, and

THE OFFICE OF THE OVERSEER OF DEDICATION TO ENLIGHTENMENT, and her

successors, a corporation sole,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nancy D. Berryman’s Motion to Strike

All of Plaintiff’s Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(f)

Nunc Pro Tunc and Motion to Set for Hearing of Motion to Strike [Docket No. 69; Filed

May 20, 2013] (the “Motion”). Defendant Berryman appears to ask the Court to strike the

Complaint [#1; Filed October 18, 2011] because it “contains no Affidavit and Complaint by

a competent fact witness attesting facts that would commence an action against Alleged

Defendants NANCY D. BERRYMAN, Et al.” [sic] Motion [#69] at 2. Defendant Berryman

further argues that “[t]he Sham Pleading contain[s] no allegations within its four corners

which could be construed to be admissible evidence in an action, pursuant to the Federal

Rules of Evidence.” Id.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief,” such as

the Complaint in this action, “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court’s jurisdiction . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” There is no

requirement that an affidavit or other admissible evidence be included in a complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#69] is DENIED.

Dated: May 21, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 71 Filed 05/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.2









Independent Auditors' Consent





The Board of Directors

Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-47877 and 333-12245) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 33-62952 and 333-26975) on Form S-8 of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation of our report dated March 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows, for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Cycle Gold Corporation.





KPMG LLP



Denver, Colorado

April 13, 2004
218 La. 198

#### state v. McDonald.

No. 39901.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 6, 1950.

Ponder & Ponder, Amite, for defendant-appellant.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joseph A. Sims, Dist. Atty., Hammond, Erlo J. Durbin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denham Springs, for ap-pellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Golda Forrest McDonald, reserved numerous bills of exceptions during the course of her trial, conviction, and sentence on a charge of manslaughter, but having failed to present them to the trial judge for his signature and action prior to her appeal, there are no valid bills before this court, and, consequently, nothing for us to review since there are no errors patent on the face of the record. Articles 499, 542, and 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Carlson, 192 La. 501, 188 So. 155; State v. Owens, 210 La. 808, 809, 28 So.2d 337; and State v. Brown, 214 La. 18, 36 So.2d 624.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

PONDER, J., takes no part.
204 La. 96

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Daly J. DOUCET.

No. 36742.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1943.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1943.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Seth Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Opelousas, and R. H. Lee, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

S. Allen Bordelon, of Marksville, and Lessley P. Gardiner, of Opelousas, for ap-pellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

For the reasons assigned in 14 So.2d 917, which was today decided, the judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside, defendant’s demurrer is now overruled, and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.

HIGGINS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. See 14 So.2d 920.

FOURNET, J., dissents and assigns reasons. See 14 So.2d 920.

PONDER, J., dissents.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00285
- CR
GARY ACY , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 32375
- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court convicted Gary Acy of re taliation and sentenced him to five years in prison. In one issue, Acy contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm

. To prove ineffective assistance, an appellant must show that: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. See Str ickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Acy v. State Page 2

Ed. 2d 674 (1984) ; see also Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S. Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2003)

. Acy contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance , identifying
several instances when counsel acted or failed to act . However , Acy did not file a motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance. T he record is silent as to any reasons explaining trial counsel’s actions and we will not so speculate. See Thompson v.
State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) . Absent a record revealing trial counsel’s strategy or motivation, Acy cannot de feat the strong presumption that trial counsel’s actions fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id . An ineffective assistance claim is better raised through an application for a writ of habeas
corpus. See Rylander v. State , 101 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

. We overrule Acy’s sole iss ue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna , and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed May 5, 2010 Do not publish [CR25]
INRAD, Inc.
                               181 Legrand Avenue
                               Northvale, NJ 07647
                                                                   Exhibit 10.19
Mr. Peter Turnquest                                            December 31, 1998
Clarex Limited
P.O. Box N3016
Nassau, Bahamas

Dear Mr. Turnquest:

This letter is written to evidence the agreement between Inrad, Inc. (the
"Company") and you, with respect to your $154,346 principal sum plus $12,348 of
accrued interest to December 31, 1998 which the company presently owes you (the
Indebtedness) on your subordinated convertible note of April 9, 1995.

By signing below, you hereby agree that as payment for the entire amount of this
Indebtedness of $166,694 you will receive 166,694 shares of the Company's Common
Stock (the "Shares").

You further acknowledge that the Indebtedness represents the entire amount owed
to you by the Company for borrowed money as of the date hereof (as opposed to
compensation and benefits).

By signing below, you also represent to the Company that: ( i ) you are able to
bear the economic risk of the investment in the Shares, ( ii ) you recognize and
agree that the Shares have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended ( the "Act"), ( iii) you recognize and agree that you will be
required to continue to bear the risk of investment in the Shares for an
indefinite period, ( iv ) you recognize and agree that such Shares must be held
by you indefinitely unless a subsequent disposition is registered under the Act
or is exempted from registration under all applicable federal and state
securities laws, ( v ) you recognize and agree that the Company will enter stop
transfer notations in its records with respect to the stock certificates
representing the shares, ( vi ) you have knowledge and experience with respect
to the Company and its business and in financial and business affairs generally
so that you are capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective
investment; ( vii ) the Shares are being acquired for your own account for
investment purposes and not with the view of resale or distribution thereof by
you and (viii) you recognize and agree that a restrictive legend will be placed
on the certificates representing the Shares summarizing the restrictions on
transferability outlined above. At the request of Clarex, the Company will make
its best efforts to register the Shares, only if it qualifies to use Securities
and Exchange Commission form S3.

Please confirm your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing below.

Very truly yours,


James L. Greco
Chief Financial Officer

Agreed to as of the 31st day of December, 1998

Clarex Limited
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00153-CV

Allen Maki

v.

Beverly Anderson and Mark C. Lane

§

§

§

§

From the 231st District Court

of Tarrant County (231-524370-12)

August 7, 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Allen Maki shall pay all costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
1

 In support of its Motion, Defendant points out that Plaintiff has failed to contact

Defendant to engage in the scheduling/planning conference. The court notes that in two other

cases filed by the same Plaintiff, the court has entered orders to show cause based on Plaintiff’s

failure to participate in the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) scheduling/planning conference and in preparing

the proposed scheduling order. (See Doc. No. 20, Case No. 11-cv-2696-REB-KMT; Doc. No.

21, Case. No. 11-cv-2695-REB-KMT.) Should it appear that Plaintiff has again failed to

participate in these court-ordered requirements, the court will consider issuing an order to show

cause in this case as well.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02697–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

COMMITTEE, 

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

“Defendant’s Motion to Stay all Proceedings Pending Decision on Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss” (Doc. No. 15, filed Apr. 4, 2012) is DENIED. Despite the fact that stays are disfavored

in this district, see, e.g., Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH,

2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007), Defendant has not cited any authority to

support its position that a stay of all proceedings would be appropriate in this case. Nor has

Defendant addressed the factors typically considered in this district to determine the propriety of

a stay. See String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006

WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006).1

 

Dated: April 9, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 18 Filed 04/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

CHIEF JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: November 6, 2013

Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel Appearing:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT MASON BYAS,

Defendant.

James Boma

Robert Berger

COURTROOM MINUTES

HEARING: Motions (Doc. #553)

9:08 a.m. Court in session.

Defendant’s appearance is waived.

The Court addresses the Government’s Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. #553)

Argument.

Oral findings are made of record and incorporated herein. 

ORDER: Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc. #553) is GRANTED.

9:17 a.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 17 minutes.

Hearing concluded.

Case 1:11-cr-00412-REB-DW Document 691 Filed 11/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE NEWPORT
NEWS SHIPBUILDING INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 21, 1999, AND THE RELATED
STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 21, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-21-1999
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       96
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         53
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600
<PP&E>                                           1,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                     858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              464
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,526
<SALES>                                            430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   430
<CGS>                                              386
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     32
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        



</TABLE>