alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John P. TURNER, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-7008.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

Before MICHEL, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

John P. Turner moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court considers whether Turner’s appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with its order in *Turner v. United States,*155 F.3d 570 (Fed.Cir.1998).

In *Turner v. United States,*155 F.3d 570 (Fed.Cir.1998), the court dismissed Turner’s appeal as frivolous and stated:

> Upon filing any future appeal or petition for review in this court without prepayment of the filing fee, Turner is directed to file a separate motion informing the clerk of this pre-filing order and demonstrating good cause why he should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

In this appeal, Turner did not prepay the fee but rather seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, he was required by our earlier order to file a motion informing the court of the pre-filing order and demonstrating good cause why he should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Turner has not complied with that order.

Furthermore, Turner has not yet paid the $100 sanction imposed by the court on June 23, 2000 in *Turner v. United States,*250 F.3d 759 (Fed.Cir.2000) (stating that until $100 sanction is paid clerk shall return to Turner any document submitted). Thus, Turner’s appeal is dismissed.

If Turner wishes for the court to consider reinstating this appeal, he must pay the $250 filing fee plus the $100 sanction within 30 days.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Turner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.

(2) The appeal is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
NorthWestNet, Inc.:
 
     We consent to the use of our report relating to the financial statements of
NorthWestNet, Inc. as of June 30, 1996 and for the six months ended June 30,
1996 and the eight months ended February 28, 1997, and the financial statements
of NorthWest Academic Computing Consortium, Inc. as of June 30, 1995 and for the
year ended June 30, 1995 and the six months ended December 31, 1995, included
herein and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the
prospectus.
 

                                          /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
Seattle, Washington
   
May 6, 1998
# URICINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

HELENA,MONTANA 59620-3003 Supreme Court No. DA 20-0186 JACOB SMITH,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL ROOPE,

Defendant and Appellee. 

# FILED MAY 0 4 2020 Bovven Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana GRANT OF EXTENSION
Pursuant to authority granted under M.R. App.P. 26(1), Appellant is given an extension of time until June 1, 2020,to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's brief. DATED this May 4, 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Jacob Smith, Michael Roope, Michael Donahoe

PO BOX 203003 •HELENA MT •59620-3003 • TELEPHONE:(406)444-3858 •FAX: (406)444-5705 05/04/2020 Case Number: DA 20-0186
Exhibit 10.2(b)


 Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (refinancings) Issued by NCT Group, Inc.
           to Carole Salkind and Outstanding as of September 30, 2005


                                                                 Conversion
     Issue Date           Due Date             Principal            Price
     ----------           --------          ---------------      ----------
      04/14/05            04/14/05        $    457,970.18         $0.0130
      04/29/05            04/29/05           1,034,532.52         $0.0120
      05/18/05            05/18/05             485,934.02         $0.0123
      06/10/05            06/10/05           1,465,534.55         $0.0100
      07/08/05            07/08/05          27,129,266.96         $0.0120
      08/01/05            08/01/05          13,349,878.22         $0.0101
      08/10/05            08/10/05          18,681,625.40         $0.0100
      08/24/05            08/24/05             979,259.94         $0.0080
      09/26/05            09/26/05           3,255,753.98         $0.0060
      09/30/05            09/30/05             444,872.73         $0.0050

                                        -------------------
                                          $ 67,284,628.50
                                        ===================
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(a)




                        CONSENT  OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements on Form S-3 of Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc. and the related
prospectuses of our report dated April 3, 1998 with respect to the supplemental
consolidated financial statements of Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc.
included in its Current Report on Form 8-K to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about April 29, 1998.


          Form S-3:  Registration No. 33-63495
                     Registration No. 333-20927
                     Registration No. 333-24683
                     Registration No. 333-35097



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
April 27, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANDORRA WOODS

HEALTHCARE CENTER GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED

EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND, AND REST HAVEN NURSING CENTER),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 92 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of August, 2018

, the Emergency Relief Request,

Application for Post

- Submission Filing of Additional Documents and Evidence in Support

of Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED

.
IV

House Calendar No. 280

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 605

[Report No. 105–826]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4328) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1999, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 20, 1998

Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4328) making appropriations

for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and

for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 4328) making appropriations for

4 the Department of Transportation and related agencies

5 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for
2

HRES 605 RH

1 other purposes. All points of order against the conference

2 report and against its consideration are waived. The con3 ference report shall be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 280

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 605

[Report No. 105–826]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference reposes. ending September 30, 1999, and for other pur- tation and related agencies for the fiscal year appropriations for the Department of Transpor- port to accompany the bill (H.R. 4328) making

OCTOBER 20, 1998

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 14, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL TERRELL WHEELER, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. JAMES FALK; JOHN SUTHERS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents - Appellees. No. 14-1062 (D. Colorado) (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02006-LTB)

ORDER *
Before KELLY , BALDOCK , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.
In this habeas action, the district court denied relief on the ground that the action was time-barred. The Petitioner appeals, but does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that the petition was late. Instead, he argues that the State waived a timeliness defense. The Petitioner can pursue the appeal only if a judge grants a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We can issue this certificate only if the

* This order does not constitute precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).Petitioner’s appeal on the timeliness ruling is at least reasonably debatable. Laurson v. Leyba , 507 F.3d 1230, passim(10th Cir. 2007). We conclude the ruling is not reasonably debatable; thus, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability. The State did not waive a limitations defense. Instead, it failed to file a timely response. The district court pointed out the failure to timely respond and again ordered a response. This time, the State complied with the order and argued that the habeas action was untimely. The State’s lapse was not commendable, but did not constitute a waiver. A limitations defense is waived when it is intentionally relinquished by the State. Wood v. Milyard, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1826, 1835 (2012). That is not what took place here. The State was slow to respond; but when it did, it raised the limitations defense. Mr. Wheeler relies on Scott v. Collins , 286 F.3d 923 (6th Cir. 2002), for the proposition that the “[f]ailure to raise an affirmative defense in a responsive pleading constitutes a waiver.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2. Scottwas abrogated in Day v. McDonough , 547 U.S. 198, 205 (2006). There the Supreme Court held “that district courts are permitted, but not obliged, to consider, sua sponte , the timeliness of a state prisoner’s habeas petition.” Day , 547 U.S. at 209. Under Day , the district court could address timeliness sua sponte .

2In these circumstances, no reasonable jurist could conclude that the State waived a limitations defense. Cf. Stines v. Martin , 849 F.2d 1323, 1324-25 (10thCir. 1988) (reversing a grant of habeas relief based on the government’s threeweek delay in responding to the habeas petition). Thus, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability. And without the certificate, we must dismiss the appeal. The Petitioner has also asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . He lacks the money to pay the filing fee. Thus, we grant his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

3
Software and Systems Division

IHE-PCD , HL7 Dev WG,

ISO/IEEE 11073, 

and

NIST

NIST MDC Test Tooling

IHE-PCD/HL7/IEEE WG Meetings

January 2011
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status/Next Steps

ICSGenerator

• Status

– Continue improving the user interface.

• Menu, toolbar and status bar

– Enumeration values are now accessible from hRTM.

– Device specializations available as “Dev. Specs.”

• These are IEEE 11073 or 10xxx published device specializations. 

• NIST will make them available in tool for users to build private device 

profiles.

• General users are not allow to change these files.

– Developed ASN.1 database to enhance the java ASN.1 library.

• Facilitate debugging and accessibility.

– Added the capability to select ASN.1 types for private attributes. 

– Added the capability of customize and save a profile unit table.
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status/Next Steps

ICSGenerator

• Status

– Improved management capabilities.

• ICSGenerator files are now saved in a profile compress file “zip” including; 

– X73 MD xml file (in conformance with the DIM XSchema)

– Project Information xml File – this file contains project description and 

additional device information such as units an enumerations.

– Conformance table files

– UML diagrams PDF files.

– Added a device overview panel to capture general device information such as device 

owner, description, etc.

– Continue code improvement and enhancement. 

• Major code rewritten in most cases.

• Project modularization to facilitate future web application and maintenance
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status

ICSGenerator 

• User Interface – Version 3.4 • User Interface – Version 3.5
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status

ICSGenerator 

“Enum Values accessible from hRTM” 

 
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status

ICSGenerator 

“Device specializations Tab”

 

 

 

 

 
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status

ICSGenerator 

“Private Attributes – ASN.1 data types” 
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status

ICSGenerator 

 “Profile Unit Table”
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status

ICSGenerator 

 Device overview panel
Software and Systems Division

Tooling Status/Next Steps

ICSGenerator

• Next Steps

– Continue work on private attributes interface.

– Continue work on ASN.1 database.

– Update PHD DIM XSchema and specialization profiles with published 

versions.

– Make ICSGenerator available as a web application. 

– Add hRTM database update capability.

• RTMMS data access path

– Develop a “Message Generator” using ICS device profile to support 

IHE-PCD HL7 testing and future X73 message testing.
as adopted by the 96th

National Conference on

Weights and Measures 2011

2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      35,421,000
<SECURITIES>                                88,090,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,502,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (327,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           126,392,000
<PP&E>                                     125,703,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,905,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             238,513,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,752,000
<BONDS>                                     39,880,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,218,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 156,663,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               238,513,000
<SALES>                                     14,113,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,768,000
<CGS>                                        5,581,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,581,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,405,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,530,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                252,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    63,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            189,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   189,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130223 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130223 COA: 262998 Macomb CC: 03-002549-FC GERMIRA LAMAR CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s0920 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 27, 2006

Clerk
#### T. T. Park *v.*Govey Mackobee.

Slaves — Right of Action — Acceptance of Satisfaction.

Where one party to a sale has a right of action against the other party, which had become perfect, the former is not required to accept in satisfaction of such right satisfaction offered by a third party.

APPEAL. PROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT.

December 30, 1872.

*187OPINION by

Judge Lindsay':

The evidence of the witness Pelfrey to the effect that he offered to exchange the mare which appellant received from appellee for the desired horse Was irrelevant and ought to have been excluded from the consideration of the jury. Appellant’s right of action against ap-pellee, if he had one, had become perfect long before this offer was made and he was under no obligation to accept satisfaction from Pelfrey of any demand or right of action plaintiff may have had against appellee. The second instruction given for appellee, 'based as it is upon Pelfrey’s testimony, is erroneous and misleading. For these reasons the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial upon principles not inconsistent with this opinion.

-, *for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE MATTER OF: J.C.-M., A MINOR

PETITION OF: H.C., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 738 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE MATTER OF: J.C.-M., A MINOR

PETITION OF: H.C., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 739 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** AUSTIN . .



## opinionx0.0-1553 33: G&oreacou8e en ound sale at tin or coQml88on of ofiense ctldein8

4 at tr 1, he isentitled 

### to be ii;zistne oi t‘2 ed

w been ao~uittod up1ln4lTrooeclure, e criae end cllwefl 

### oomis6ion of the crime tte trial and provides that the th certified to the county judge necessary step6 to have the dend confined in a state hos?ftal for .xozes 8me .* Article 5551a, 

### Vorndn’s Texas Clril Statutes, protide6 ror lunacy prooeedincs rrguinstpersons,."Ilot

### charged dth a oritinal offent@.

Cha?ter 2, Tltlc 51, ~orlsed Statutes, 

### 36 ononded Oontaln nuaerou6 provisions trlth**reference** to state hospltais. While there are prorlelons to the effect that *‘a

### person alleeed to be lnsano, 

### andWhois not held on a crinllnaloharge,

.-- ______ ___,__.. __ --_- .__. em.“-Ron. Carl I-errlman,Page 2



### oajrbe oonolttad to and **oonflnrd** 

### in Edlnatltutlon ior the 606tod7 

### end treatment or 

### the imane”, there dons not 

### ap?eor to be ray speolflo prohibition a~olnst an insane person Vito 16 ohaqed 

### with **the** WWd66iOn **of** a **crtne** 

### belpg **t.re&ed. in**  **one** of the State hOSpit416.



### It is **therefore** 

### the opinion of this 

### depurtmmt that under the state of taots submitted in your letters the defeodant, air.Trl~ht,~ia entitled to be aooepted 

### nnd treated in one of

### the State hospltkls Par the insane. Ye are inpelled to this view beOaU66 rrom a reading OS all the statutes we cannot 

### arrive at the ooncluslon that it is the Log16latiw intent that all persons oharged with the 00I~1%S6iOnai a 

### orlmewho have been adjudged as being of sound 

### .z.lndat the dste of the elleged ooiz&8sion but who hate subsequently become insane mu8t remin in the **custody of**  **tte siiwiff**  **until** 

### they return to sanity. Certainly it~48 

### hotthb intention Of the Legislature to so provide. ZHdontly 

### the puqoso of those provisions in the Statutds is to avoid coaplalnte in lunacy **bei=** tiled a&dnet persons charged nlth orime for the purpose of delayiag trial md making the IState'scase nore **diiflcult.** The purpose certainly oould not htve bee3 that tnoab insane persona, if they continue insane ;lustremin ln the custodp of the 

### sheriff until death.

'J /'A. s. i?ollins a8SiStClt
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-679V 

Filed: January 4, 2016 

Not for Publication 

************************************* 

CYNTHIA RAE TORRES, * 

 * 

Petitioner, * 

 * 

 v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* 

************************************* 

Larry G. Michel, Salina, KS, for petitioner. 

Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On December 29, 2015, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to 

settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that she suffered GuillainBarré Syndrome (“GBS”) that was caused by her April 8, 2013 receipt of the rubella and tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines. Respondent denies that the rubella or Tdap 

vaccines caused petitioner’s GBS or any other injury. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve 

this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 

2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be 

made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that 

is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a 

clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify 

and move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon 

review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special 

master shall delete such material from public access.

Damages decision based on stipulation; 

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); 

rubella vaccine; tetanus-diphtheriaacellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine

 
 The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby 

adopts the parties’ attached stipulation and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms 

set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of $105,000.00, 

representing reimbursement for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(a) (2012). The award shall be in the form of a check payable to petitioner in the amount of 

$105,000.00.

 In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2016 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.