alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00708-CV

Style: Stage Stores, Inc.

v. Jon Gunnerson

Date motion filed*: November 13, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to file agreed record

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Agreed record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant appellant additional motions to extend 

time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s motion to file agreed record is denied. Further, the Court strikes the record filed by the

parties on November 13, 2013. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34 does not allow the parties to file

their own agreed record directly with this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.2 (“By written stipulation filed

with the trial court clerk, the parties may agree on the contents of the appellate record.”). However, to the

extent the parties believe that relevant items were not included in the clerk’s record previously filed with

this Court, the parties “may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the

appellate court a supplement containing the omitted item[s].” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1). Further, to the

extent that documents contained in the clerk’s record are illegible, these documents are considered

effectively destroyed and “the parties may, by written stipulation, deliver a copy of [the destroyed items] to

the trial court clerk for inclusion in the clerk’s record or a supplement.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(e).

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: November 26, 2013
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Rolling to the Launch Pad","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"i55MfuXPEG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/rolling-launch-pad\/\">Rolling to the Launch Pad<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/rolling-launch-pad\/embed\/#?secret=i55MfuXPEG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Rolling to the Launch Pad” — NASA\" data-secret=\"i55MfuXPEG\" 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\/2023\/03\/51351712377_a30259b8d7_o.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-02111-BSB Document 10 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:15-cv-02111-BSB Document 10 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 654 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 654

                For the relief of Thomas McDermott, Sr.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 1997

  Mr. Petri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Thomas McDermott, Sr.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASE.

    Thomas McDermott, Senior, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, is authorized to 
purchase, at fair market value, the real property of the United States 
in Grant County, New Mexico, to which Mr. McDermott's mineral patent 
application applied and the Bureau of Land Management of the Department 
of the Interior is directed to enter into negotiations with Mr. 
McDermott for the purchase of such real property. Such application is 
Mr. McDermott's application filed under the Act of May 10, 1872 (30 
U.S.C. 22 et seq.) (referred to as the ``1872 Mining Law'') identified 
as mineral patent application NMNM 78359. Such purchase shall be made 
not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w40



 


Exhibit 10.40

Amendment to Employment Agreement between Registrant and Roger Jeffs


AMENDMENT



     THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the 11th day of December, 2002 to the
Employment Agreement between Roger Jeffs, Ph.D. (“Executive”) and United
Therapeutics Corporation dated November 29, 2000 (the “Agreement”).


     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided below.


     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend the
Agreement as follows:


     1.     Waiver of Guaranteed Annual Salary Increase. The first sentence of
Section 4(a) of the Agreement is amended to delete the following language: “,
such annual base salary to be increased by a minimum of 10% on each anniversary
of the term of Executive’s employment hereunder.”


     2.     Effect. No other provisions of the Agreement shall be affected by
this Amendment, and all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.


     In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as
of the date first written above.



	 	UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION




	
	

	Roger Jeffs, Ph.D. 	Martine Rothblatt, CEO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMIAH WILLIAM BALIK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF TORRANCE; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15324 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02174-RFB-EJY 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. 

Jeremiah William Balik appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging various constitutional violations. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 

* 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).

FILED

MAR 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15324 

2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 

547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Balik’s action was proper because Balik’s claims are too 

frivolous and unsubstantial to invoke subject matter jurisdiction. See Hagans v. 

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (“Over the years this Court has repeatedly held 

that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their 

jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of 

merit . . . .”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A 

paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter 

jurisdiction[.]”), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319

(1989).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Balik a vexatious 

litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the 

requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See RinggoldLockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting 

forth requirements for a pre-filing review order).

We reject as unpersuasive Balik’s contentions that the district court erred in 

denying his pending motions as moot, including his motions to enter default and 

default judgment, that the district court erred in denying his application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, and that Balik was entitled to a hearing before the district court 
3 20-15324 

declared him a vexatious litigant. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not 

consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States 

v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions and requests are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"ATD-2","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TCB2hsfQEf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/atd-2briefing\/\">ATD-2<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/atd-2briefing\/embed\/#?secret=TCB2hsfQEf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“ATD-2” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TCB2hsfQEf\" 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\/2017\/06\/atd-2briefing.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
**Exhibit 32**

|******Certification of Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q**
|------------------------------------------------------
|**of National Health Realty, Inc.**                   
|**For The Quarter Ended June 30, 2006**               

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the undersigned's best knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for National Health
Realty, Inc. ("Issuer") for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

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

This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2006.

This Certification is executed as of August 9, 2006.

| | /s/Robert G. Adams                  
| | ------------------------------------
| | Robert G. Adams                     
| | President                           
|
|
| | /s/Donald K. Daniel                 
| | Donald K. Daniel                    
| | Senior Vice President and Controller
| | (Principal Financial Officer)       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the company and
will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jason Ramjattansingh v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 01089

- CR

Trial court case number: 2019635

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 8 of Harris County



### Appellant , Jason Ramjattansingh, has filed a Motion to Abate and to Stay Briefing Schedule. Ramjattansingh contends he filed a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the denial of his motion to suppress.

The motion is GRANTED. We abate the appeal and remand for the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law, separate and apart from any docket sheet notations in this case, in conjunction with the trial court’s

denial of Evans’s m otion to suppress. See State v. Cullen , 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that trial court must provide findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide appellate court with basis to review trial court’s application of law to facts, either in writing or on record at hearing); Wicker

v. State , 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); T EX



### . R. A PP 

### . P. 44.4.

The trial court shall make the appropriate findings and conclusions and shall

cause them to be filed with the trial cour t clerk within 20 days of the date of this order. We further order the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court within 30 days of the date of this order.

A ppellant’s brief will be due 30 days after the supplemental clerk’s record is

filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually Date: May 17, 2016
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

October 22, 2012

p1015

Order 

October 22, 2012

145505

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145505

COA: 308039

Wexford CC: 2010-009660-FH

TERRY DEAN ROSSELL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2012 order of 

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

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


Item 14
Exhibit 11

                           MTL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Year ended December 31,

                         1993            1994            1995            1996            1997
                         ----            ----            ----            ----            ----
                                      (dollars in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                      <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Diluted:
 Weighted average
  Shares out-
  Standing               1,640,429       3,181,457       4,516,153       4,520,917       4,536,097
 Net effect of
  dilutive secur-
  ities, based on
  treasury stock
  and if-converted
  methods                1,833,405         852,217          26,556          79,350         175,204
                         ---------      ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------

Total shares used
 In computation          3,473,834       4,033,674       4,542,709       4,600,267       4,711,301
                         =========       =========       =========       =========      ==========


 Net income from
  Continuing
  operations
  attributable to
  common stock-
  holders                3,688,346       5,982,140       7,801,658       8,836,707      10,483,363
 Adjustments             1,298,791         513,830               0               0
                         ---------      ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------

Total used in
 computation             4,987,137       6,495,970       7,801,658       8,836,707      10,483,363
                         =========       =========       =========       =========      ==========

 Net income from
  Continuing
  operations per
  common and
  common equiv-
  alent share                 1.44            1.61            1.72            1.92            2.23
                         =========       =========       =========       =========      ==========

</TABLE>
#### Eli McWilliams *v.*Samuel Fecleamer.

Legal Tender — Interest, When Stopped.

A tender of “legal tender treasurer notes” will not stop' the running of interest on a note or account. A contract for the payment of money can not he discharged in the United States Treasury notes.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 10, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The court below adjudged that tbe appellee was indebted to *681appellant after deducting bis acount of $55.45 in the sum of $696.80 which was adjudged to him but adjudged that be was only-entitled to interest on said sum from the 6th of May, 1864, when appellee tendered the amount of his indebtedness in United States legal tender treasury notes and that appellant must take said notes.

*Turner, for appellant.*

*Breck & Terrill, for appellee.*

And of this judgment appellant complains. In Griswold v. Hepburn, *2 Duvall 20,*this court adjudged that a contract for the payment of money could not be discharged in United States treasury notes— That opinion has been approved by the supreme court of the United States. The judgment, therefore, of the court below was erroneous, and is *reversed*and the cause remanded with directions to fender judgment for appellant for the amount of his notes and interest from the time each was due, to be credited by the account of appellee of $55.45 at the date it was due which seems to be 1st of January 1863, from which, however, should be deducted three dollars an open account appellant has against appellee — and 'for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Appellant will be entitled to his costs in the court below.
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-LCK Document 28-1 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-LCK Document 28-1 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-LCK Document 28-1 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-LCK Document 28-1 Filed 05/18/16 Page 4 of 4