alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Lawrence V. Ashe

2 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

3 100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 2800

4 Miami, Florida 33131

5 Tel: 305-539-8400/Fax: 305-539-1307

6 E-mail: lashe@bsfllp.com

7 Attorneys for Petitioners Vividus, LLC

8 f/k/a HM Compounding Services, LLC

9 and HMX Services, LLC

10

11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

12 FOR THE DISTICT OF ARIZONA

13 In the Matter of the Arbitration of

14 CVS Health Corporation, Caremark, )

15 LLC and Caremark PCS, LLC, )

16 Claimants, )

17 )

18 and )

19 )

20 Vividus, LLC f/k/a HM Compounding)

21 Services, LLC, HMX Services, LLC, ) Case No. MC-15-0093-PHX-JJT

22 d/b/a HM Compounding, )

23 Respondents. )

24 _______________________________)

25 Vividus, LLC f/k/a HM Compounding) NOTICE OF APPEAL

26 Services, LLC, and HMX Services, )

27 LLC d/b/a HM Compounding, )

28 Petitioners/Appellants, )

29 v. )

30 )

31 Express Scripts, Inc., )

32 Respondent/Appellee. )

33 _______________________________)

Dated this 5

th 34 day of July, 2016

35 /s/ Lawrence V. Ashe

36 Attorneys for Vividus, LLC f/k/a HM 

37 Compounding Services, LLC and HMX 

38 Services, LLC

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 3
1 Notice is hereby given that Vividus, LLC f/k/a HM Compounding Services, 

2 LLC and HMX Services, LLC, petitioners in the above named case, hereby appeal 

3 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the attached Order 

4 denying Petitioners’ petition to enforce subpoena duces tecum entered in this 

action on the 13th 5 day of June, 2016.

6 Respectfully submitted,

7

8 By: /s/ Lawrence V. Ashe 

9 Lawrence V. Ashe, Esq.

10 Florida Bar No.: 932280

11 E-mail: lashe@bsfllp.com

12 Steven W. Davis, Esq.

13 Florida Bar No.: 347442

14 E-mail: sdavis@bsfllp.com

15 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

16 100 Southeast Second Street, Ste. 2800

17 Miami, Florida 33131

18 Tel: 305-539-8400

19 Fax: 305-539-1307

20 Attorneys for Vividus, LLC f/k/a 

21 HM Compounding Services, LLC and 

22 HMX Services, LLC

23 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

24

25

26

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 3
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 5, 2016, the foregoing was filed 

3 electronically with the Clerk of Court, to be served by operation of the Court’s 

4 electronic filing system upon the following:

5 Christopher A. Smith, Esq.

6 Sarah C. Helmann, Esq.

7 Jason M. Husgen, Esq.

8 HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP

9 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600

10 St. Louis, MO 63105

11 Tel: (314) 480-1500

12 Fax: (314) 480-1505

13 Chris.smith@huschblackwell.com

14 Sara.hellmann@huschblackwell.com

15 Jason.husgen@huschblackwell.com

16

17

18

19 /s/ Lawrence V. Ashe

20 Lawrence V. Ashe

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 22 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01946-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01946-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01946-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Astronaut Available to Discuss First, Next 50 Years of Spacewalking","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DkpY5xjoqz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/astronaut-available-to-discuss-first-next-50-years-of-spacewalking\/\">Astronaut Available to Discuss First, Next 50 Years of Spacewalking<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/astronaut-available-to-discuss-first-next-50-years-of-spacewalking\/embed\/#?secret=DkpY5xjoqz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Astronaut Available to Discuss First, Next 50 Years of Spacewalking” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DkpY5xjoqz\" 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\/2015\/05\/mike-foreman-spacewalk.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":408}
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60395 

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES M. LYLE, IV,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP W. JARRELL, DEIDRE

COSPELICH, WILLIAM F. DUKES, 

For the law firm of Dukes, 

Dukes, Keating & Feneca, P.A.’s,

RICARDO DEDEAUX, MICHAEL D. HALL,

Warden, RICK GASTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-211GR

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed

by James M. Lyle, IV, #84998, because it had no arguable basis in
No. 96-60395

- 2 -

law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993).

This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 702 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.

Lyle is cautioned that any additional frivolous filed by him

will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions,

Lyle is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure

that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
1

HLD-169 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1816

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

MARK C. WEST,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. No. 05-cr-00366-001)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 31, 2011

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges

Opinion filed June 30, 2011 

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Mark C. West pleaded guilty to mail and insurance fraud. In January 2008, 

the District Court sentenced him to 60 months in prison. West appealed. We granted the 

Government’s subsequent motion to enforce West’s appellate waiver and to summarily 
2

affirm the District Court’s judgment. 

West then filed a pro se motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The 

Government responded by moving to dismiss the motion pursuant to the appellate waiver 

and by arguing that the claims were without merit. The District Court appointed counsel 

for West from the Federal Courts Division of the Defender Association. In November 

2010, after a hearing at which West and his counsel were present, the District Court 

permitted West to withdraw his § 2255 motion.

In March 2011, West wrote a letter to the District Court. He asked the 

District Court to appoint counsel, other than someone from the Defender Association, to 

represent him in an attempt to be resentenced to home confinement because of his 

medical ailments (which he listed for the District Court) and his age (78 years old). The 

District Court denied his motion in a short order, adding in a footnote that West did not 

show why counsel other than a Federal Defender is warranted. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Isidor Paiewonsky 

Assocs., Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc., 998 F.2d 145, 149-51 (3d Cir. 1993). We review 

for abuse of discretion an order denying the appointment of counsel. See United States v. 

Nichols, 30 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1994).

Because no substantial issue is presented on appeal, we will summarily 

affirm the District Court’s order. See Local Rule 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. The District Court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying West counsel. It is unclear under what authority 

West could win a reduction or change in his sentence based on the reasons he gave in his 
3

letter motion. It is also unclear why counsel other than someone from the Federal 

Defender Association would be necessary if counsel were to be appointed. The District 

Court committed no error.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Sudan

On November 3, 1997, by Executive Order (E.O.) 13067, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Sudan and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan. On April 26, 2006, in E.O. 13400, the President determined that the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region posed an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, expanded the scope of the national emergency to deal with that threat, and ordered the blocking of property of certain persons connected to the conflict. On October 13, 2006, the President issued E.O. 13412 to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency and to implement the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-344).

The actions and policies of the Government of Sudan continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in E.O. 13067 of November 3, 1997, expanded on April 26, 2006, and with respect to which additional steps were taken on October 13, 2006, must continue in effect beyond November 3, 2014. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Sudan declared in E.O. 13067.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. 2014-25791

Billing code 3295-F5
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Julia L. Bradshaw","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/julia-l-bradshawnasa-gov\/","title":"A Langley Intern Traveled 1,340 Miles to View a Total Solar Eclipse. Here\u2019s What She Saw.","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TSfw2QPo4G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/a-langley-intern-traveled-1340-miles-to-view-a-total-solar-eclipse-heres-what-she-saw\/\">A Langley Intern Traveled 1,340 Miles to View a Total Solar Eclipse. Here\u2019s What She Saw.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/a-langley-intern-traveled-1340-miles-to-view-a-total-solar-eclipse-heres-what-she-saw\/embed\/#?secret=TSfw2QPo4G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“A Langley Intern Traveled 1,340 Miles to View a Total Solar Eclipse. Here\u2019s What She Saw.” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TSfw2QPo4G\" 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\/2024\/04\/emma-eclipse-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":546}
EXHIBIT 32.

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who is the  chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community First  Bancorporation,  hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form  10-Q of the  issuer  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

November 14, 2008

                             s/ Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN BETANCOURT.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement No. 333-157760-03 on Form S-3 of our reportdated September 28, 2009, relating to the financial statements of FerrellgasPartners Finance Corp. appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to the AnnualReport on Form 10-K/A of Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. for the yearended July 31, 2009.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Kansas City, Missouri

November 6, 2009

 

----
#### Beltz Reichman *v.*R. Stokle et ux.

Negligence! — Damages for Personal Injury.

In cases where the negligence is in leaving a horse and wagon without' an attendant, or any way secured or guarded, exemplary or vindictive damages are not to be given unless the negligence complained of is so gross as to raise the presumption of malice.

Same — Instructions.

It was error to leave it discretionary to the jury to find such damages as the plaintiff sustained not exceeding the amount claimed in the petition.

Same — Damages.

The instruction should be for compensation and remuneration for loss of time, necssary expenditures and permanent disability.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

October 7, 1869.

*296
      *Webster, for appellants.*

Hawkins, *for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Two principal errors are assigned for the reversal of the judgment:

First, that the court refused to instruct the jury peremptorily to find for appellants, as asked by them.

And, second, in giving the instruction as asked by appellees.

The evidence shows that the horse of appellants harnessed to a wagon was running on the street uncontrolled and without a driver, and it is not shown that he was when he took fright within the inclosure of appellants, or any way secured by being fastened, or guarded by a driver, or otherwise; hence said instruction asked for by them was properly refused by the court.

In cases of this character the rule is that exemplary or vindictive damages are not to be given unless.the *negligence*complained of is so gross as to raise the presumption of malice. The evidence in this case conduces to show that the horse was quiet, well broken, accustomed to harness, and not easily frightened, and no evidence of gross negligence. It was therefore erroneous to leave it discretionary to the jury to find such damages as the appellees sustained not exceeding the amount claimed in the petition, and not to be restricted to the actual damage proved. Whereby they were in their discretion told in effect that they might give vindictive or exemplary damages, when they should have been compensatory, remunerating the injured party for loss of time, necessary expenditures and permanent disability. The instruction is inconsistent with the ruling of this court in *Parker v.*Jenkins, *3*Bush,*587,*and with the authorities there cited.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial, and further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### John Spalding *v.*James Edmonson.

New Trial — Misconduct of Jury — Affidavit of Jurors.

The affidavit of jurors cannot he received to prove mishehaior in their fellow jurors for the purpose of impeaching their verdict.

Same — Process of Arriving at Verdict.

A judgment will not he set aside, and reversed where a jury had arrived at a verdict, hy dividing the amount that each one honestly thought the plaintiff in an action ought to recover, hy 12 after the respective amounts had heen aggregated, and making one-twelfth thereof their verdict.

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

June 22, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The evidence in this case utterly fails to show that at the time of speaking the words complained of, that appellant accompanied them by a statement of such facts, and circumstances as showed that the offense charged by him to have been committed by appellee could not have been a felony. But the witnesses prove the speaking of the words, without any such explanatory facts or circumstances whatever, and as proved they were actionable.

As to the -refusal of the court to set aside the verdict on account of the alleged misconduct of the jury, in the case of *Allard vs. Smith, 2 Met.,*297, this court has again sanctioned the well established rule, that the affidavit of jurors cannot be received to prove misbehavior in their fellow jurors as a ground for impeaching their verdict. Besides, the court gave no instruction to the jury as to the process by which they were to come to an agreement as to what should be their'verdict. In the case above named where the court below instructed the jury that they had the right, each one, to set down the sum he believes ought to be recovered by the plaintiff, and add the sum together, then divide the sum total by the number 12, and find the amount a twelfth part in damages if they think proper to do. This court reversed the judgment in *426that case on account of that instruction which is disapproved; on account of the dangerous tendencies of such a practice, and the facilities it would offer for the commission of fraud, and chicanery. But no case is remembered by this court, and it has been referred to none, in which a verdict has been set aside, and judgment reversed where a jury has arrived at a verdict, by dividing the amount that each one honestly thought the plaintiff in an action ought to. recover by 12 . after the respective amounts had been aggregated, and making the one-twelfth thereof the verdict. And if the fact was properly ascertained that the jury reached their verdict in that way in this case, without some evidence of fraud, trick or imposition on the part of some of the jury, this court would not feel authorized to interpose, and set aside the verdict, and order a new trial.

*Russell & A., for appellant.*

Belden, *for appellee.*

Perceiving no error, therefore, in the ruling of the court below the judgment must be *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          82,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,120
<PP&E>                                         465,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,321
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 487,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,920
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,008,947
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   487,455
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               393,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (397,924)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (397,924)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (397,924)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)


</TABLE>