alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Steve MELANCON.

No. 2010-KK-2742.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 2011.

In re Melancon, Steve; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 500-942; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1719.

Denied.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anthony PICKLE, Appellee.

No. 4D08-4961.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 16, 2009.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Wolfe, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Dismissed. See*§ 924.07(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (2009), and *State v. Hewitt,*21 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

WARNER, FARMER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Lionel FRANCIS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2097.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Francis, Lionel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 07-CR330; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00271.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., concurs in the denial on the showing made.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

[MEMORY LOGO]

MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.
100 Philips Parkway                                               TONY SCULLION
Montvale, New Jersey 07645                               Chief Executive Officer
Phone: (201) 802-7103
Fax: (201) 802-7190
E.mail:scullion@memorypharma.com
www.memorypharma.com



October 22, 2003

F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
Grenzacherstrasse 124
CH-4070
Basel, Switzerland
Attn: Legal Department

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
340 Kingsland Street
Nutley, NJ 07110
Attn: Corporate Secretary


Dear Sirs:

     Reference is made to the Collaboration and License Agreement dated July
29, 2002 (the "Agreement") among F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Hoffmann-La Roche
Inc. (collectively "Roche") and Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("Memory"). Memory
and Roche desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

     In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein,
Roche and Memory hereby agree that the Agreement is hereby amended to delete
the Event "JLT decides to file an IND for MEM1414" included in Section 4.1 of
Article 4, and to replace it with the Event:

          "The earlier to occur of the following events:

          1. both approval of the MAD protocol by the Institutional Review Board
             and written notification by the Roche development team to Memory
             and the JLT of Roche's decision to proceed with a MAD study (after
             the development team has met with Memory to review and discuss the
             results of the four-week tox study and SAD study), or

          2. the JLT decides to file an IND for MEM1414."

     Except as amended by this letter, all of the terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
<PAGE>
October 22, 2003
Page 2

      If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign and return one
copy of this letter.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.

                                       By: /s/ Tony Scullion
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name: Tony Scullion
                                           Title: C.E.O.

Agreed to this
               ----
day of October, 2003

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD

By: /s/ B. Bulzon
    -----------------------------------
    Name: B. Bulzon
    Title: Exec Vice President

By: /s/ D. Schaffner
    -----------------------------------
    Name: D. Schaffner
    Title: V.P. Licensing

HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.

By: /s/ Dennis E.  Burns
    ----------------------------------
    Name: Dennis E. Burns
    Title: Vice President
           Global Head of Business Development
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors

Bay Banks Of Virginia, Inc.

Kilmarnock, Virginia

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-112947) and in the related Prospectus, of our report, dated
January 27, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report of Shareholders and in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.

Winchester, Virginia

March 22, 2006



50
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 April 29, 2013

s0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146548

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146548

COA: 306788

Kent CC: 11

- 002803

- FH

LOUIS WAYNE RANSOM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PLATFORM 10, LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF THE

TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN

SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-17018

D.C. No. 

3:20-cv-00238-RCJ-CLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 16, 2022** 

San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Platform 10, LLC (Platform 10) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of

its breach of contract action against the Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak

FILED

AUG 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 *

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 * * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (the Band) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. We review de novo,1 and we affirm. 

The district court correctly determined that Platform 10 failed to carry its

burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id.; see also 28

U.S.C. § 1331.2 Platform 10’s two causes of action— for breaches of contract and

the covenant of good faith and fair dealing— are precisely the sort of “run-of-themill contract claims”3

 over which federal courts do not have jurisdiction, regardless

of the presence of an Indian tribe. See Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Henningson,

Durham & Richardson, 626 F.2d 708, 714–15 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Begay v.

Kerr-McGee Corp., 682 F.2d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir. 1982). They were not created

by federal law, nor is Platform 10’s claimed right to relief dependent “on the

resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo

Nation, 373 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004). The claims do not arise under federal

law merely because the subject of the parties’ contract was construction of a

gaming facility that would itself be subject to federal regulation and oversight. See

1

See Newtok Village v. Patrick, 21 F.4th 608, 615 (9th Cir. 2021). 

2

 We address federal question jurisdiction only because that is the only basis

for jurisdiction asserted in Platform 10’s opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587

F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 

3 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.

1997).

2
Littell v. Nakai, 344 F.2d 486, 487–88 (9th Cir. 1965). Rather, any right to relief

manifestly sounds in basic contract and tort. See Peabody Coal Co., 373 F.3d at

951; Newtok Village, 21 F.4th at 619. 

Moreover, the Band’s alleged consent to federal court jurisdiction and

waiver of sovereign immunity in the contract cannot confer federal jurisdiction

where none otherwise exists. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State

Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Park

Place Assocs., 563 F.3d 907, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED. 

3
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132303 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DETROIT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices

v SC: 132303 COA: 267715 Wayne CC: 04-413781-CK URS CORPORATION, DESIGN COLLECTIVE and TDC/URS, a/k/a TDC/URS CORPORATION,Defendants/Third-Party PlaintiffsAppellants, and

MARK ENGLISH, EMMETT B. HAGOOD, JR., CAROLE HARRIS, GARY BALDWIN, HARISH CHOPIA, CINDY GARCIA, THOMAS HAMPSON, WILLIAM STEVENSON and BEVERLY HANNAH JONES, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,

v

BAILEY TURNER VE NTURE, EL BAILEY COMPANY, INC., AND TURNER CONSTRUCTION, Third-Party Defendants/Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0220 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.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven Purcell, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A ofAlternative Resources Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofcircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e)for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluations; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrols over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  January 28, 2004 | /s/ Steven Purcell |                     |
|------------------------------|--------------------|--------------------------|
|                         |               | Steven  Purcell          |   |
|                         |               | Chief  Financial Officer |   |
|                         |               |

 

----
2020 WI 26



# S UPREME 

# C OURT OF 

# W ISCONSIN

C ASE N O .: 2018AP651

- CR

C OMPLETE T ITLE : State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

- Cross Petitioner,

v.

Kelly James Kloss,

Defendant

- Appellant

- Petitioner.

REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reported at 386 Wis. 2d 314,925 N.W.2d 563

PDC No:2019 WI App 13

- Published

O PINION F ILED : March 6, 2020

S UBMITTED ON B RIEFS :

O RAL A RGUMENT : October 14, 2019

S OURCE OF A PPEAL :

C OURT : Circuit

C OUNTY : St. Croix

J UDGE : Eugene D. Harrington

J USTICES :

PER CURIAM.

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY and DANIEL KELLY, JJ., dissent.

N OT P ARTICIPATING :

A TTORNEYS :

For the plaintiff

- respondent

- cross petitioner, there were

briefs filed by Lisa E.F. Kumfer , assistant attorney general, with

whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul , attorney general. There was

an oral argument by Lisa E.F. Kumfer

.

For the defendant

- appellant

- petitioner, there were briefs

filed by Steven L. Miller and Miller Appellate Practice, L LC, River

Falls. There was an oral argument by Steven L

. Miller

.2020 WI 26

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further

editing and modification. The final

version will appear in the bound

volume of the official reports.

No. 2018AP651

- CR

(L.C. No. 2014CF465)

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

- Cross

Petitioner,

v.

Kelly James Kloss,

Defendant

- Appellant

- Petitioner. 

## FILED

MAR 6, 2020

Sheila T. Reiff

C lerk of Supreme Court

REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed as

improvidently granted.

¶ 1 PER CURIAM. Kelly Kloss and the State cross

- petitioned

for review of the decision of the court of appeals, State v. Kloss

,

2019 WI App 13, 386 Wis. 2d 314, 925 N.W.2d 563. After reviewing

the record and the briefs of both p arties, and after hearing oral

arguments, we conclude this matter should be dismissed as

improvidently granted.No. 2018AP651

- CR

2 ¶ 2 By the Court.

— The review of the decision of the court of

appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.

¶ 3 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY and DANIEL KELLY, JJ., dissent.No. 2018AP651

- CR

1
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Anson Orlando HEARD.

No. 2011-K-1291.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Heard, Anson Orlando; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 262,291; to *1176the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,230-KA.

Denied.
CI. BY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION OF NANCY E. KILLEEN, BAR NO. 3985. No. 69673 

# FILED FEB 1 9 2016 

## s *it/ 

# re

• P 1

14 1 K 

### ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney Nancy E. Killeen for her resignation from the Nevada bar.

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security fund matters are pending against Killeen; and that she is current on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to her practice of law in this state. 

### See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2).

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for resignation. 

### See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Killeen acknowledges that her resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior to resignation. 

### See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Killeen has submitted an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. 

### See SCR 98(5)(e). CHI



## Kp-O53 

## 8 0 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (.0) 1947A eaThe petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5).

Accordingly, we approve attorney Nancy E. Killeen's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED.

C.

- J. Parraguirre
J. Hardesty

Gibbons J.

J.

cc: Killeen & Associates, P.C. C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 

### e
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, PETER J. RICE, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MRO Software,
Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: February 17, 2004

By: /s/ Peter J. Rice
--------------------------------
Peter J. Rice
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Marvin BECK v. NEWT BROWN CONTRACTORS, LLC.

No. 2011-C-2352.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Newt Brown Contractors LLC;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1W, No. 09-10266; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,523-WCA.

Denied.
#### Western Union Telegraph Co. v. W. J. Goodsey.

(No. 6533.)

Appeal from Johnson County.

Stemmons & Field, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 123. *Pleading; exemplary damages; facts entitling party must he alleged.*This is a suit by appellee against the appellant to recover damages, both actual and exemplary, for failure to transmit and deliver a telegram sent by him from Eosenberg to Cleburne, Texas. He recovered judgment for $10 actual and $50 exemplary damages and for costs. In his original petition appellee *185made no claim for exemplary damages, but in a trial amendment he made such claim, based upon a general allegation of gross negligence on the part of appellant’s servants and employees. Appellant excepted to the sufficiency of the trial amendment, which exception the court overruled, and submitted to the jury the issue of exemplary damages. We are of opinion that exception to the claim of exemplary damages should have been sustained. No facts are alleged in the trial amendment which under the law would entitle appellee to recover exemplary damages. [Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 58 Tex. 170; Hays v. Railway Co., 46 Tex. 272; Daniel v. Telegraph Co., 61 Tex. 456.] We are not prepared to say that the claim for actual damages for anxiety of mind is not maintainable. We incline to the opinion that it is, and therefore hold that the court did not err in overruling the exceptions to the original petition. Because the court erred in not sustaining the exceptions to the claim for exemplary damages, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

June 4, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.