alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

______________________________________ 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION No. MDL15-2641-PHX DGC 

___________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff(s) ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS 

 OF JANA LIGHTFOOT 

Civil Action No. CV17-3075-PHX DGC WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Jana Lightfoot 

___________________________________ 

 The Court has considered the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice 

of Jana Lightfoot. Doc. 8813. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECLARED that all claims 

of Plaintiff Jana Lightfoot against Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc. in Civil Action No.: MDL15-02641-PHX-DGC (Member Case CV17-

3075-PHX DGC) are dismissed in its entirety without prejudice as to the refiling of same, 

and each party shall bear its own costs. 

 Dated this 13th day of November, 2017. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8845 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2241 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2241

   To reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs 
                         through June 30, 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 26, 2004

Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Harkin) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs 
                         through June 30, 2004.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN MILITARY HOUSING ALLOWANCES.

    Section 9(b)(7) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(7)) is amended by striking ``March 31, 2004'' and 
inserting ``June 30, 2004''.

SEC. 2. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM.

    Section 17(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(a)(2)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``March 
31, 2004'' and inserting ``June 30, 2004''.

SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT TO STATES UNDER COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS.

    Section 15(e) of the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC 
Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note; Public Law 100-237) is amended 
by striking ``April 1, 2004'' and inserting ``July 1, 2004''.

SEC. 4. FUNDING MAINTENANCE OF COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS.

    Section 14(a) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1762a(a)) is amended by striking ``March 31, 2004'' and 
inserting ``June 30, 2004''.

SEC. 5. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Section 13(q) of the Richard B. Russell National 
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(q)) is amended by striking ``March 31, 
2004'' and inserting ``June 30, 2004''.
    (b) Pilot Projects.--Section 18(f)(2) of the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(f)(2)) is amended by striking 
``March 31, 2004'' and inserting ``June 30, 2004''.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ZooLink Corp. (the
  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2003 (the "Report"),
  the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
  certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                       
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                     
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: December 15, 2003 | By: | /s/ West McDonald                       
|------------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------
|                         |     |                                         
|                         |     | West McDonald                           
|                         |     | President & Principal Accounting Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2125 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2125

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                         State of Rhode Island.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2004

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                         State of Rhode Island.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN RHODE ISLAND.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No cca areas within rhode island.--A CCA area shall 
        not include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
        Rhode Island.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
#### SAMUEL ROSENFARB v. ROBERT BOHRER.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM CARRAMERICA
REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND FROM  CARRAMERICA  REALTY  CORPORATION  AND  SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE  NINE  MONTHS  ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         22,882
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                      1,022,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                115,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,043,908 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       426,069
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          355
<OTHER-SE>                                    545,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,043,908
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              109,904
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  91,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                19,881
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            19,881
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   484
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   15,502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.68 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.00
<FN>
<F1>
(1)  Notes and accounts  receivable  are presented net of allowance for doubtful
     accounts as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael R. Renfroe *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-1073A132.

Filed September 19, 1974.]

*520
      *Kenneth M. McDermott,*of Plymouth, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Glenn A. Grampp,*Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

A juvenile petition was pending against defendant and pursuant to court order he was being detained in the county jail. He escaped and was recaptured the next day. Eight days after his escape, pursuant to hearing, juvenile jurisdiction was waived on the original matter and he was charged in criminal court. Three days later he was charged with the jail break. (He had his eighteenth birthday prior to the escape.)

When he later entered a plea of guilty to these charges, the court imposed consecutive sentences. We believe this was erroneous.

The statute provides in relevant part:

> “. . . If such person shall be convicted of the commission of a felony for which he was imprisoned [or] in custody at the time of his escape, any penalty imposed under the provision of this act shall be in addition to the penalty imposed for the commission of such other felony, and shall not run concurrently therewith. . . .” IC 1971, 35-21-8-1, Ind; Ann. Stat. § 10-1809 (1974 Supp.)

*521In construing the statute, it should be noted that (a) the juvenile code is to be liberally construed to effect its social purpose towards juveniles. There is a presumption in favor of disposing of juvenile matters within the juvenile system, *Atkins*v. *State*(1972), 259 Ind. 596, 290 N.E.2d 441; and (b) penal statutes are to be strictly construed against the state. *State*v. *Bigbee*(1973), 260 Ind. 90, 292 N.E.2d 609.

Applying these dual concepts to defendant’s case, it must be said that at the time of his escape, he was not imprisoned or in custody for a felony. At that time he was in custody on a juvenile detention, and was merely charged on a juvenile petition.

However, we are unable to presently afford the defendant relief because we lack jurisdiction of his attempted appeal. After sentencing he filed a petition for relief under Post Conviction Remedy, Rule 1. The court denied relief, and this appeal followed. No motion to correct errors has ever been filed addressed to the court’s ruling upon the PCR 1 petition. The filing of such a motion is a prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of this court. Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59 (G). *Indiana State Personnel Board*v. *Diggs*(1971), 257 Ind. 156, 272 N.E.2d 868.

However, the trial court does have jurisdiction and should proceed pursuant to IC 1971, 35-4.1-4-17, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1827a (Burns 1974 Supp.) which provides for the correction of an erroneous sentence.

The present attempted appeal is dismissed.

Note. — Reported at 315 N.E.2d 405.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24141]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8912]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ennion: Master of Roman Glass''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
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, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ennion: Master of Roman Glass,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about December 9, 2014, 
until on or about April 13, 2015, The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, 
New York, from on or about May 15, 2015, until on or about October 19, 
2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-24141 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
# Unexpected Urgent Refugee And Migration Needs Resulting From Flooding In Pakistan 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the  United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of  1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $33 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting  unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs resulting from recent devastating  flooding in Pakistan. 

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                 

[FR Doc. 2010-27673

Billing code 4710-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Corti,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03619-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8928 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"For Advanced Air Mobility, Safety is Paramount","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kAj3pi0J4J\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/for-advanced-air-mobility-safety-is-paramount\/\">For Advanced Air Mobility, Safety is Paramount<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/for-advanced-air-mobility-safety-is-paramount\/embed\/#?secret=kAj3pi0J4J\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“For Advanced Air Mobility, Safety is Paramount” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kAj3pi0J4J\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/safety_re-route.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

ISIAH ROMONT HILL, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0344 PRPC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2006-009614-001 

The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Isiah Romont Hill, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 5-10-2018
STATE v. HILL

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court. 

P E R C U R I U M: 

¶1 Petitioner Isiah Romont Hill seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petitions for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. These are petitioner’s eighth, 

ninth, and tenth successive petitions.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
CASE NO. 12-14-00210-CR

BOBBIE GRUBBS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS APPELLANT § § VS. § TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS § THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS 

### MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW The State of Texas , Appellee, by and through her District Attorney, Kenneth B. Florence, and files this motion for leave to file a late motion for an extension of 30 days in which to file the Appellee’s Brief. In support of this motion, Appellee shows the court the following: I. Appellant was convicted in the 273 Judicial District Court of Shelby County, Texas, by a rd jury, of the offense of Capital Murder. The judge assessed punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, for Life, without the possibility of Parole. II. The deadline for filing the Appellee’s Brief was July 3, 2015. That date was the official observance of Independence Day and all county offices were closed. That date has passed. III. Appellee’s request for an leave to file a late motion for extension of time is based upon the following facts: 1. Appellee can get the brief filed within the 30 days requested. 2. This motion is not opposed by defense counsel. ACCEPTED 12-14-00210-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 7/9/2015 3:04:49 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK3. This motion i s the State’s first motion for an e x tension.

4. The elec ted District Attorney was the only attorney in the office for 4 y ear s, and a new Assistant District Attorney

was just approve d eff

ective June 8, 2015. Wherefor e, Appe llee pray s the court g rant the motion for leave to late file this motion for extension, t he motion for extension, and extend the deadline f or filing the Appellee ’s B rief to Aug ust 7, 2015.
Respectf ully submitt ed, /s/ Kenneth B . Flore nce KENNET H B . FL ORENCE TBA # 00790698 Shelby County Assistant District Attorney 200 San Aug ustine Street Suite 12 Center, Te x as 75935 (936) 598- 2489 (936) 598- 4106

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE I here by cer

tify that a true and corr ect copy of the State’s Moti o n for L eave to file a L ate Motion for Ex tension of Time to File Appellee ’s Br ief, as rela ted above, was serve d upon, Stephen Shires, Attorney for Appellant, 123 San Aug ustine Street, Center, Texas 75935, by fac simil e (936) 598-3031, on this the 7 day of Jul y 2015. t h /s/ Kenneth B . Flore nce KENNET H B . FL ORENCE