alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00383-CV

COMMISSIONERS COURT OF WISE 

COUNTY, TEXAS; AND DANNY WHITE,

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT 

ONE, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS,

Appellants

V.

KATHERINE MASTROPIERO, Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 271st District Court

of Wise County (CV18-06-475)

April 20, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings 

consistent with this court’s opinion.

It is further ordered that appellee Katherine Mastropiero shall bear the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
Exhibit 23.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

Plug Power Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-41863, 333-72841, 333-76817), Form S-3 (No. 333-112464), and Form S-1 (No. 333-121868) of Mechanical Technology Incorporated of our report dated February 7, 2003, except as to Note 15, which is as of March 25, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Plug Power Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K) of Mechanical Technology Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Our report refers to cumulative consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the period June 27, 1997 (inception) to December 31, 2002 which include amounts for the period from June 27, 1997 (inception) to December 31, 1997 and for each of the years in the three-year period ending December 31, 2000, which were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the period June 27, 1997 through December 31, 2000 is based solely on the report of other auditors.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

 

Albany, New York

March 21, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3841 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3841

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                             in New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2004

    Mr. Pallone (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Holt, Mr. Payne, Mr. 
Rothman, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
the operation of the Medicare comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program 
                             in New Jersey.

    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 NEW JERSEY.

    Section 1860C-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
29(b)(2)), as added by section 241(a) of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) No part in new jersey.--No part of the MSA is 
                in New Jersey.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6666

WILLIAM E. ALTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; WEXFORD & ASSOCIATES 

CONTRACTORS; ISAIS TESSAMA, MD; MICKELS, MD; BARBARA NEWLON; 

BEVERLY SPARKS, P.A.; VICTOR JACKSON; J. P. MORGAN, Warden; 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL 

SERVICES; KATHLEEN GREEN, ECI Warden; DAVID MATHIS, MD; 

NURSING STAFF; MCDONALD, P.A.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:10-cv-02365-WMN)

Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Alton, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, 

Katrina J. Dennis, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; 

Erin O’Brien Millar, Valerie L. Tetro, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & 

PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William E. Alton, III, appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Alton v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 1:10-cv-02365-WMN (D. 

Md. Apr. 18, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Innovative Solutions and Support, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 
| By:    | /s/ GEOFFREY S.M. HEDRICK |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | GEOFFREY S.M. HEDRICK     |   |
|   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER   |   |
|   |                      |   |
|   |                      |   |
|   | /s/ JOHN C. LONG          |   |
|   | JOHN C. LONG              |   |
|   | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER   |   |

 

February 6,2009

GEOFFREYS.M. HEDRICK

 

----
Case: 1:20-cr-00585 Document #: 43 Filed: 05/11/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:92
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1687
HERSCHELL L. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STANTON H. FERGUSON, JR., Chief, Operations Division; A. CATHERINE AMIDON, Chief, IMOO; ROSITA PARKS, Director; SHIRLEY HOHN, Shift Leader, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-96-239) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herschell L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herschell L. Harris appeals the district court's order denying his tort action as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harris v. Ferguson , No. CA-96-239 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 1996). We deny Harris's motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, for expedited treatment, and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7561

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY RAY WEBB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-122-F; CA-01-489-5-F) Submitted: April 1, 2005 Decided: April 21, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF, WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gary Ray Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Handbook 44 - 2008 

Foreword 

Handbook 44 was first published in 1949, having been preceded by similar handbooks of various designations and in 

several forms, beginning in 1918. 

Handbook 44 is published in its entirety each year following the Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights 

and Measures (NCWM). The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances of the NCWM developed the 2008 Edition 

with the assistance of the Weights and Measures Division (WMD) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST). This handbook includes amendments endorsed by the 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures 

during its Annual Meeting in 2007. 

NIST has a statutory responsibility for "cooperation with the states in securing uniformity of weights and measures laws 

and methods of inspection." In partial fulfillment of this responsibility, NIST is pleased to publish these 

recommendations of the NCWM. 

This handbook conforms to the concept of primary use of SI (metric) measurements recommended in the Omnibus Trade 

and Competitiveness Act of 1988 by citing SI units before inch-pound units where both units appear together and placing 

separate sections containing requirements in SI units before corresponding sections containing requirements in inchpound units. In some cases, however, trade practice is currently restricted to the use of inch-pound units; therefore, some 

requirements in this handbook will continue to specify only inch-pound units until the NCWM achieves a broad 

consensus on the permitted SI units. 

In accord with NIST policy, the meter/liter spellings are used in this document. However, the metre/litre spellings are 

acceptable, and are preferred by the NCWM. 

It should be noted that a space has been inserted instead of commas in all numerical values greater than 9999 in this 

document, following a growing practice, originating in tabular work, to use spaces to separate large numbers into groups 

of three digits. This avoids conflict with the practice in many countries to use the comma as a decimal marker. 

iii
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 
 
 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the period ended August 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey E. Wallin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
 2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 ****By:
/s/ Jeffrey E. WallinJeffrey E. WallinPresident and CEOOctober 20, 2004
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41070

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO MORA-MERAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CR-26-1

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Antonio Mora-Meraz has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mora-Meraz has

received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 02-41070

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6174

In Re: JERMAL DANIELS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-89-186, CA-98-259-2)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING,* Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermal Daniels, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermal Daniels filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to restore his right to file a direct appeal of his

1990 conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic

remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard,

811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he

has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a

clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that

there is no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed.

Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Daniels

exercised his right to appeal his 1990 sentence, see United States

v. Daniels, 929 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1991), and thus has already been

afforded the relief he now seeks. Accordingly, although we grant

Daniels leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition

for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4012

To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to permanently 

authorize the public school and private school tuition assistance programs 

established under the Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2004

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself and Ms. NORTON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 

1999 to permanently authorize the public school and 

private school tuition assistance programs established 

under the Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF TUITION AS4 SISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM.—Section 3(i) of the 

6 District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 

7 38—2702(i), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking 
2

•HR 4012 IH 

1 ‘‘each of the five succeeding fiscal years’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘each succeeding fiscal year’’. 

3 (b) PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAM.—Section 5(f) of 

4 such Act (sec. 38—2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amend5 ed by striking ‘‘each of the five succeeding fiscal years’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘each succeeding fiscal year’’.

Æ
Exhibit 10.1


 


[Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Letterhead]


 


September 7, 2005


 


 


Bennett M. Shapiro


532 LaGuardia Place


Suite 524


New York, NY 10012


 


Re:  Consulting Agreement — Renewal


 


Dear Mr. Shapiro:


 


Reference is made to the
Industry Consulting Agreement effective as of October 4, 2004  (the “Agreement”) between Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Company”) and you (“Consultant”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings given such terms in the
Agreement.  The parties hereby amend the
Agreement as follows:


 


1. 
Company and Consultant hereby agree to extend the term of the Agreement,
as listed in Paragraph 3 of Attachment A, for one additional year, commencing
on October 4, 2005 and terminating on October 3, 2006 (the “1st
Renewal Period”).  The Agreement may be
extended for additional periods by mutual written consent.


 


2.  As full compensation for the consulting
services rendered under the Agreement during the 1st Renewal Period,
Company shall grant Consultant, under Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and
standard form of Non-Statutory Agreement, a non-statutory option to purchase,
at fair market value on the date of grant, 4,000 shares of the common stock of
Company, exercisable within three (3) years of the date of grant.  Subject to any non-renewal or earlier
termination of this Agreement, the 4,000 shares shall vest over a one-year
period in 12 equal monthly installments, with the first installment vesting one
month from the date of grant.


 


All other terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during the 1st
Renewal Period.


 


If the foregoing is in
conformity with your understanding, please sign both copies of this letter
agreement and return to us for counter-signature, attention:  Lisa Carron Shmerling, Deputy General
Counsel.  This letter agreement shall be
deemed to be binding and effective, upon the terms specified herein, as of the
date of the final signature below.


 





















 


	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  
	
  MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS,
  INC.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Susan K. Whoriskey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Susan K. Whoriskey

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President, Licensing
  and Business Development

  



 


 


	
   

  	
  Agreed and accepted:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Bennett M. Shapiro

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Bennett M. Shapiro

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  9/20/05
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, T. Don Waddell, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 Registrant.





/s/ T. Don WaddellT. Don WaddellChief Financial OfficerAmerican Patriot Financial Group, Inc.March 31, 2011
No. 14,931.

#### Orr et al. *v.*Cravens et al.

Filed May 1, 1891.

From the Jackson Circuit Court.

*W. K. Marshall,*for appellants.

*J. M. Lewis*and *B. H. Burrell,*for appellees.

Miller, J.

The question involved in this appeal is the same question that was involved and decided in *Orr*v. *Owens, ante,*p. 229. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case this case is affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Heide K. Bartnett

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02127

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Abbott Laboratories, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, May 6, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has received

confidential communication from Defendants' counsel. Based on that communication, the

parties have settled this case with the final term identified by the Plaintiff at the settlement

conference, subject to preparation and signing of a settlement agreement. Defendants shall

provide a first draft of the settlement agreement by 5/12/21; Plaintiff shall provide any

edits by 5/19/21; final settlement agreement to be executed by 5/26/21; stipulation to

dismiss to the district judge by 6/4/121. Tracking status hearing set for 6/2/2021 at 9:15

a.m. Mailed notice(lxs, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02127 Document #: 88 Filed: 05/06/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:697