alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* At the parties’ request, the case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral

argument pursuant to the applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 6/24/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JOE WILLIE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES SIMMONS, Secretary of Corrections; ROD CRAWFORD, Director of Operations; WAYNE PHELPS, Manufacturing Manager; MARTY MORA, CIM II, Kansas Correctional Industries; LEONARD L. EWELL, Director of Administration, Defendants - Appellees. No. 96-3059 (D.C. No. 96-3026-GTV) (District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Joe Willie Jones, a state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment out of deliberate- 2 -

indifference to his serious medical needs when they forced him to work at a strenuous job. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim of constitutional dimension. The court also denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Plaintiff now appeals and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff filed his notice of appeal before President Clinton signed the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, §§ 801-10, 110 Stat. 1321, (1996), into law, we determine his fee status on appeal without regard to that Act. White v. Gregory , No. 95-1215, slip op. at 3 (10th Cir., June 21, 1996). We grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The district court concluded that plaintiff had merely “challenge[d] a matter of medical judgment concerning the restrictions necessary to accommodate his diagnosis,” and, therefore, he failed to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Ledoux v. Davies , 961 F.2d 1536, 1537 (10th Cir. 1992) (a prisoner’s disagreement with the judgment of medical personnel does not give rise to a claim of deliberate indifference). Plaintiff objects to the district court’s characterization of his claim. He states that medical personnel properly restricted him from strenuous activity, but other corrections personnel failed to abide by that restriction when they required him to work. We agree with the district court that plaintiff has failed to allege deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff admits in his complaint that medical personnel did not place any work restrictions on him; the restrictions only pertained to- 3 -

sports. Defendants did not “deny, delay, or intentionally interfere” with plaintiff’s medical care by requiring him to work. See Wood v. Housewright , 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Hutchinson v. United States , 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
#### In the Matter of Daniel Goldstein et al., Appellants, v New York State Urban Development Corporation, Doing Business as Empire State Development Corporation, Respondent.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 168.

Motion by Fifth Avenue Committee et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2469 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2469

To direct the Secretary of Defense to establish an outreach program to 
inform members of the Armed Forces, assigned to work near burn pits, of 
          the risks of toxic exposure, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2023

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Defense to establish an outreach program to 
inform members of the Armed Forces, assigned to work near burn pits, of 
          the risks of toxic exposure, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Toxic Exposure Education for 
Servicemembers Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. OUTREACH TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES REGARDING POSSIBLE 
              TOXIC EXPOSURE.

    (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall establish--
            (1) a new risk assessment for toxic exposure for members of 
        the Armed Forces assigned to work near burn pits; and
            (2) an outreach program to inform such members regarding 
        such toxic exposure. Such program shall include information 
        regarding benefits and support programs furnished by the 
        Secretary (including eligibility requirements and timelines) 
        regarding toxic exposure.
    (b) Promotion.--The Secretary of Defense shall promote the program 
to members described in subsection (a) by direct mail, email, text 
messaging, and social media.
    (c) Publication.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall publish on a 
website of the Department of Defense a list of resources furnished by 
the Secretary for--
            (1) members and veterans who experienced toxic exposure in 
        the course of serving as a member of the Armed Forces;
            (2) dependents and caregivers of such members and veterans; 
        and
            (3) survivors of such members and veterans who receive 
        death benefits under laws administered by the Secretary.
    (d) Toxic Exposure Defined.--In this section, the term ``toxic 
exposure'' has the meaning given such term in section 101 of title 38, 
United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    MAY 31, 2005
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED    CANADA(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
    
    000-30758(CommissionFile Number)
    
    62-12-62580(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    L6T 5P6(Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
     Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02      Results of Operations and Financial Condition On May 31, 2005, Nortel
Networks Corporation issued a press release regarding the filing of
its and the registrants 2005 First Quarter Report on Form 10-Q. Such press
release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in
accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K. Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the registrant is Nortel
Networks Corporations principal direct operating subsidiary. Item 9.01      Financial Statements and Exhibits  (c)

Exhibits 99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on May 31, 2005.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Peter W. CurriePeter W. CurrieExecutive Vice-President andChief Financial Officer By:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant General Counsel  Securities
and Corporate Secretary Dated: June 1, 2005




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on May 31, 2005.
#### In Re: Dwight SPENCER, Petitioner.

No. 06-6558.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

Dwight Spencer, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Spencer petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to file his pro se motion to *471show cause. In the motion to show cause, Spencer seeks to require the Government to explain why money confiscated from his person in 1997 was forfeited, and why he did not receive notice of the forfeiture. The district court clerk responded to the mandamus petition, explaining that the documentation appended to Spencer’s mandamus petition shows that he mailed the order to show cause to the Asset Forfeiture Section of the Drug Enforcement Administration, not to the district court. The district court’s records do not reflect that the court ever received any filing from Spencer.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). We conclude that because Spencer did not mail his show cause order to the district court, he has not met his burden of showing that his right to the relief sought in his mandamus petition is “clear and indisputable.” *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 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.*
Exhibit 32

Certification Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
Partner's knowledge and belief, that:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/MICHEL E. MAES                       /s/JAMES R. STEFFEY
Michel E. Maes                          James R. Steffey
Co-General Partner                      Co-General Partner
Date: 5-2-06                            Date: 5-2-06
#### In the Matter of Lonnie Bowie, Appellant, v Erie County Children’s Services, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 882]

*1313Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered December 15, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied the petition for sole custody.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his petition seeking sole custody of his son. The child previously was found to be an abandoned child in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b seeking to terminate the parental rights of the child’s mother and was placed in respondent agency’s custody. The father was determined to be a “notice father” in connection with that proceeding, i.e., he was entitled to notice of an adoption of the child pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111-a *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [12]). The father’s contention that Family Court erred in characterizing him as a “notice father” rather than a “consent father” is not properly before us. We note, in any event, that the father failed to establish that he had a substantial relationship with the child such that his consent to an adoption as an unwed father would be required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d) *(see Matter of Raquel Marie X.,*76 NY2d 387, 394 [1990]; *Matter of Jayden C. [Michelle R.J,*82 AD3d 674 [2011]).

The father’s further contention that respondent failed to comply with Family Court Act §§ 1017 and 1021 by using its best efforts to promote the father’s relationship with his child also is not properly before us on this appeal. Those sections of the Family Court Act are applicable when a child is initially removed from a parent’s custody, and thus they are not applicable in the instant proceeding. Finally, the court properly denied petitioner’s custody petition *(see generally Matter of Ammann v Ammann,*209 AD2d 1032, 1033 [1994]).

Present— Scudder, RJ., Peradotto, Carni, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-95-281


San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and 
Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent 
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Notice 
of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on January 12, 2015, Koch Energy Trading, Inc. 
submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 
536.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary 
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System 
Operator and the California Power Exchange., 149 FERC ] 61,116 
(2014) (Opinion No. 536).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eaacafb8a9a5848683848fb99f9a9a85989eaa8c8f9889c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="45030017060a2b292c2b20163035352a373105232037266b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 2, 2015.

    Dated: January 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00803 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the                           ( print page 1408)                        following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.                

*The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting:*

January 6, 2015, 10:05 a.m.-11:25 a.m. (EST)

The above-referenced meeting will be via teleconference.

The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

                    Further information may be found at:                     *http://www.nyiso.com/​public/​energy_​future/​nyiso_​planning/​nyiso_​services/​index.jsp*

The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

                    Order No. 1000, Final Rule on Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning and Public Utilities, Order No. 1000, 136 FERC ¶ 61,051 (2011),                     *order on reh'g and clarification,*                     Order No. 1000-A, 139 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2012).                

Docket No: ER13-102, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and New York Transmission Owners.

                    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or                     *James.Eason@ferc.gov*.                

Dated: January 5, 2015.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-00160 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                             697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                       198
<INVENTORY>                                      2,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,414
<PP&E>                                           8,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,327
<BONDS>                                            619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,563
<SALES>                                          6,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,818
<CGS>                                            3,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    911
<INCOME-TAX>                                       364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                547
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       547
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
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








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Finance Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 16th day of November,
2009.





/s/ Stephen B.
Thompson


Stephen
B. Thompson


Chief Finance
Officer