alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11450 Conference Calendar

MICHAEL D. RODGERS, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DALLAS METROCARE SERVICES INC.; JAN STEVENSON; ROBERT SPENCER; JEFFREY B. RENNER; JOYCE WHEELER; RICK MATHEWS; ALL OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS OFFENDERS PROGRAM STAFF; MARYANNE ROMANO, Director, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CV-1165-L

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael D. Rodgers, Sr., appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants based on res judicata in his civil rights suit. Rodgers alleged in his suit that the defendants violated his civil rights, violated his rights as stated in the Patients Handbook, subjected him to racial profiling, unlawfully denied him medical services, andNo. 01-11450 -2- discriminated against him because of his medical condition. Prior to filing his federal action, Rodgers had filed in state court a nearly identical action against the same defendants, for whom the state court granted summary judgment. Afforded liberal construction, Rodgers argues on appeal that he lacked a fair opportunity to litigate in state court and that the district court erred in applying res judicata. Under Texas law, res judicata requires proof of the following elements: 1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; 2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; and 3) a second action based on the same claims that were raised or could have been raised in the first action. See Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp. , 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). After a de novo review, we conclude from the record that res judicata properly applies to this case and that the district court did not err.
AFFIRMED.
##### 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
 SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS
CAYMAN FUND, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND
NEW, L.P., and SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND II,
L.P., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated,
    
    
    Civil Action No.
1:04-cv-01006-RPMPlaintiffs,v.QUOVADX, INC., LORINE R. SWEENEY, GARY T. SCHERPING,
JEFFREY M. KRAUSS, FRED L. BROWN, J. ANDREW COWHERD,
JAMES B. HOOVER, CHARLES J. ROESSLEIN, and JAMES A.
GILBERT,Defendants.
  
 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT




---



##### 



I. THE ACTION
  II. QUOVADXS CONCESSIONS AND DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY
  1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



III. LEAD PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AND THE BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT
   3




---



##### 



IV. TERMS OF STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
  1. Definitions
  Special Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v. Quovadx, Inc. et al.
    4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



.
    7




---



##### 



Heller v. Quovadx, Inc. et al. i.e.
     8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



2. The Settlement
 a. The Settlement Fund
  10




---



##### 



e.g.
    in custodia
legis
  11




---



##### 



e.g.
 b. Taxes
   12




---



##### 



13




---



##### 



c. Termination Of Settlement
  3. Preliminary Approval Order And Fairness Hearing
  14




---



##### 



4. Releases
    5. Administration And Calculation Of Claims, Final Awards, And Supervision And
Distribution Of Settlement Fund
    15




---



##### 



16




---



##### 



17




---



##### 



6. Lead Counsels Attorneys Fees And Reimbursement Of Expenses
   18




---



##### 



7. Conditions Of Settlement, Effect Of Disapproval, Cancellation Or Termination
      19




---



##### 



nunc pro tunc
  20




---



##### 



8. Miscellaneous Provisions
   21




---



##### 



22




---



##### 



23




---



##### 



.
 APPROVED:Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the Class:By:
    
    /s/ Lawrence M. RolnickLawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC65 Livingston AvenueRoseland, New Jersey 07068Telephone: (973) 597-2500Fax: (973) 597-2469Email: lrolnick@lowenstein.comBy:
    
    /s/ Marc B. KramerMarc B. Kramer, Esq.A Professional Corporation150 JFK Parkway, Suite 100Short Hills, New Jersey 07078Telephone: (973) 847-5924Email: marcbkramer@cs.com
 24




---



##### 



Counsel for Quovadx:By:
    
    /s/ Michael T. WilliamsMichael T. WilliamsWHEELER TRIGG KENNEDY LLP1801 California Street, Suite 3600Denver, Colorado 80202Telephone: (303) 244-1800Fax: (303) 244-1879Email: williams@wtklaw.com
 25
No. 06-14-00099-CV

————————— IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA

————————————————————————————————— RICHARD PARKER

Appellant

v. JOANN PARKER NEAL

Appellee

—————————————————————————————————

On Appeal from the 276th District Court of Camp County

Robert Rolston, Judge Presiding

—————————————————————————————————

AGREED MOTION TO ISSUE MANDATE

————————————————————————————————— On June 30, 2015, this Court issued its opinion and judgment in this case, affirming the trial court’s judgment which determined that Nobie Parker’s 2006 will (which named Appellant Richard Parker as the only beneficiary) was invalid. See Opinion at p. 1. As noted in the Court’s opinion, Nobie’s 2003 will divided her estate equally among her children, including Appellant Richard Parker and Appellee JoAnn Parker Neal. See Opinion at p. 1 n.1. Now that the Court has issued its opinion regarding the 2006 will, Richard and

AGREED MOTION TO ISSUE MANDATE Page 1 ACCEPTED 06-14-00099-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/16/2015 10:12:22 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKJ o An n are read y t o ret urn t o t h e t ri al co u rt reg ar d i n g p r o b a t e o f t h e 2 0 0 3 wi l l

. As

s u ch , p u rs u an t t o Tex as Ru l e of Ap p el l at e Pro ced ure 1 8 .1 (c), Ri ch ard an d J o An n ag ree t o i s s u an ce o f t h e m an dat e at t h e Co u rt ’ s earl i es tco nv en i en ce. W HEREFORE, PREM ISES CONSIDERED, Ap p el l ee J o A n n Park er Neal
p ray s t h at t h is Co u rt en t er an o rd er g ran t i n g h er Ag reed M o t i o n fo r Is s u an ce o f
M an d at e an dt h at t h e Co u rt i s s ue i t s m an d at e at t he Co u rt ’ s earl i es tco n ven i en ce. Res pect fu l ly

s u bm i tt ed ,
/ s / Ch ad M . Ru b ack Ch ad M . Ru b ack St at e Bar No . 9 0 0 01 2 4 4 Th e Ru b ackLaw Fi rm 8 1 1 7 Pres t o n Ro ad Su i t e 3 0 0 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 2 5 (2 1 4 ) 5 2 2 -4 24 3 (2 1 4 ) 5 2 2 -2 19 1 facs i m i le ch ad @ap p eal .p ro C ERTI FI CATE OF CONFERENCE On J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 , I co n ferred wi t h To m S. McCo rk l e, co un s el fo r Ap p el l an t Ri ch ard Park er, an dh e ag rees t o t h e rel i ef s o u g h ti n t h i s m o t i o n . / s /Ch adM . Ru b ack Ch ad M

. Ru b ack

AGRE E D MOT ION T O ISSUE MANDAT E Pa g e 2CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

On J ul y 16 , 2 0 1 5 , I serv ed a co p y o f th i s d o cu m en t t o t h e fo l l o w i n g co u n s el fo r Ap p el l an t Ri ch ard Park er: To m S. M cCo rk l e 4 0 3 W . Ty l er St reet Gi l m er, Tex as 7 5 6 4 4 / s /Ch adM . Ru b ack Ch ad M

. Ru b ack

AGRE E D MOT ION T O ISSUE MANDAT E Pa g e 3
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2014-01-27 16:02:34","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"}],"value":"2014"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Repoeting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"7"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["ARC","DFRC","GRC","GSFC","JSC","LaRC","MSFC","JPL","NSSC","OIG","SSC","KSC","OGC","HQ"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["7","8","4","21","26","3","16","10","2","6","2","17"," ","53"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["8","6","5","22","30","4","13","6","3","4","2","17"," ","44"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["3"," ","1","8","4"," "," "," "," "," ","1","2"," ","1"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2014","quarter":"Q1"}
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28072]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Hematology Small Business.
    Date: November 11-12, 2010.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Delia Tang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
2506, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1460757a7370547767663a7a7d7c3a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="592d38373e3d193a2a2b77373031773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-28072 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 21.1

eLOYALTY SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                              
|------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Company                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                           |  |                              
|eLoyalty Europe Holding Corporation        |  | Delaware                     
|eLoyalty International Holding, Inc.       |  | Illinois                     
|eLoyalty (Netherlands) B.V.                |  | Netherlands                  
|eLoyalty (Canada) Corporation              |  | Canada                       
|eLoyalty (Deutschland) GmbH                |  | Germany                      
|eLoyalty (UK) Limited                      |  | England & Wales              
|eLoyalty Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. |  | Australia                    
|eLoyalty International Limited             |  | Ireland                      
|eLoyalty (Switzerland) Ltd.                |  | Switzerland
EXPLORER 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, U. S. District Judge for the Eastern **

District of New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIE MICHELLE ANDAYA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71423

Agency No. A077-069-833

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: GOODWIN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and COGAN,

District Judge.** 

Marie Michele Andaya, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for

review of an order denying asylum and withholding of removal. The petition is

denied. 

FILED

JUL 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
An immigration judge (IJ) concluded that her application for asylum was

time barred. The one-year bar faced by an asylum applicant and the bar’s exception

for “extraordinary circumstances” involve mixed questions of law and fact,

reviewable by this court when the facts, as here, are undisputed. Husyev v.

Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2),

8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Andaya has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating

extraordinary circumstances that justify the almost two-year period between losing

her legal immigration status and applying for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5).

In addressing Andaya’s request for withholding of removal, the IJ found that

none of the past incidents faced by Andaya rose to the level of persecution and

Andaya had not established that it was more likely than not that she would be

persecuted upon her return to the Philippines. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16. Substantial

evidence does not compel a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

481 & n.1 (1992). 

PETITION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         577,286
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         599,388
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,249,605
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     85,511,885
<ALLOWANCE>                                    694,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,351,649
<DEPOSITS>                                  77,804,361
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,074,122
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       945,730
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,277,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              93,351,649
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,952,811
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               66,476
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                61,594
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,080,881
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             965,437
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,011,539
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,069,342
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,249,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,834)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (22,834)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (834)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.23
<LOANS-NON>                                    338,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               701,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               688,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              695,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           695,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleon Watson, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 238]

*722Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered May 2, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s request to introduce the grand jury testimony of a witness who had since become unavailable to testify at trial. Evidence of this type “must be admitted when it is material, exculpatory and has sufficient indicia of reliability” *(People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277, 286 [2004]). Although the unavailable witness’s testimony did carry sufficient indicia of reliability *(see People v Robinson,*89 NY2d 648, 656-657 [1997]; *People v Arce,*309 AD2d 1191, 1192 [2003]), it was nevertheless properly excluded by the trial court because, even if believed, it was neither material nor exculpatory *(see People v Robinson, supra*at 654-655; *People v Douglas,*304 AD2d 458, 459 [2003]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60864-60865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Alkermes 
Gainesville LLC

ACTION: Notice of registration.

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

SUMMARY: Alkermes Gainesville LLC applied to be registered as an 
importer of a basic class of controlled substance. The DEA grants 
Alkermes Gainesville LLC registration as an importer of this controlled 
substance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice dated June 10, 2014, and published 
in the Federal Register on June 17, 2014, 79 FR 34551, Alkermes 
Gainesville LLC, 1300 Gould Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30504, applied 
to be registered as an importer of a certain basic class of controlled 
substance. No comments or objections were submitted for this notice.
    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered

[[Page 60865]]

the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823,952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the 
registration of Alkermes Gainesville LLC to import the basic class of 
controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with 
United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's 
maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and 
testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the 
company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the 
company's background and history.
    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted 
registration as an importer of Noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import the above listed controlled substance 
for analytical research and testing.
    The import of the above listed basic class of controlled substance 
would be granted only for analytical testing and clinical testing. This 
authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved 
or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United 
States.

    Dated: October 1, 2014.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-24032 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         136,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  701,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               971,000
<PP&E>                                         656,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,406,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          580,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       197,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,168,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,406,000
<SALES>                                      2,812,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,812,000
<CGS>                                        2,484,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  757,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (388,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (389,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (389,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>