alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STANDARD KNITTING, LTD., Appellant, v. TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA, Appellee.

No. 2006-1323.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 22, 2006.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,930                  14,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,353                 109,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                       547                     547
<INVENTORY>                                     41,739                  41,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,670                 169,670
<PP&E>                                         712,606                 712,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 421,800                 421,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,212                 517,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,170                 113,170
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,970                 196,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   517,212                 517,212
<SALES>                                        180,890                 565,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,890                 565,348
<CGS>                                          168,456                 512,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,456                 512,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,279                  21,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,217                  15,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1062)                  15,777
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1062)                  15,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1062)                  15,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)                     .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)                     .42
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-11-0506-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JULY 18, 2012

_____________________________

GAYLE SAUNDERS, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of HAROLD SAUNDERS, Deceased, AND SARAH SAUNDERS,  

	Appellants 

v.

NATHAN SCOTT ROBINS, M.D.,  

	Appellee

_____________________________

FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2009-546,399; HONORABLE LESLIE HATCH, PRESIDING

_____________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_____________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Gayle Saunders, individually and as representative of the estate of Harold Saunders, and Sarah Saunders sued Dr. Nathan Robins for medical malpractice.  The opinions of an expert were submitted by the Saunders to support their claim.  However, they were struck by the trial court to the extent they related to a breach of the pertinent standard of care and proximate cause between the breach and injury.  According to that court, the opinions relating to the breached standard of care were internally inconsistent and those relating to causation lacked “adequate foundation.”  This then led the trial court to grant Robins’ no-evidence summary judgment on both breaching the standard of care and causation.  

	The Saunders appealed the trial court’s decision to strike the testimony and grant summary judgment.  They did so by arguing that their expert’s opinions were not inconsistent.  No attack was levied upon the ruling that they also lacked adequate foundation, however.  Thus, there remains one ground upon which the trial court’s evidentiary ruling may be upheld (i.e., that the averments about the breach proximately causing injury lacked adequate foundation).  Given this and the absence of any other evidence illustrating causation, we have no basis upon which to conclude that the trial court erred in disposing of the suit as it did.   See Duff v. Yelin, 751 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1988) (stating that in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove the negligence of the defendant proximately caused the injury alleged); Kimber v. Sideris, 8 S.W.3d 672, 675-76 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (stating that in reviewing a no- evidence motion for summary judgment, an appellate court must ascertain whether the non-movant produced any evidence of probative force to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented).  

Accordingly, the summary judgment is affirmed. 

						Per Curiam

2

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 of Wolverine Tube, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis J. Horowitz, Chief
Executive Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., 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 and belief:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



/s/  Dennis J. Horowitz


Dennis J. Horowitz
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 6, 2016

a0829

Order 

Clerk

September 6, 2016

151973 & (22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151973

COA: 325139

Wayne CC: 02-013450-FC

KENDALL DONALDSON, 03-000437-FC

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1995
<CASH>                                       2,002,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,370,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                  1,290,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,372,000
<PP&E>                                       3,616,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,372,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,503,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F3>
<PREFERRED>                                     16,000
<COMMON>                                        36,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,800,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,372,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,976,000
<CGS>                                                0<F4> 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,504,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,103,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                369,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    37,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            332,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   332,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .005
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .005
<FN>
<F1>Amount is not separately provided in interim financial statements.
<F2>Amount is included in figure for property, plant and equipment.
<F3>Amount is not separetely in interim financial statements.
<F4>Amount is not seperately in interim financial statements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES POTTS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-500C DECISION

On June 11, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to four (4) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Burglary, a Felony. It was the further judgment of the Court that the Defendant shall not be eligible for parole unless and until he successfully completes the Chemical Dependency Treatment.

On November 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Lindsey Pilecki. The state was represented by Ed Corrigan.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Comí; this 4th day of November, 2010.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### Joseph David MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden; Donald J. Zelenka; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-6310.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 1, 2006.

Joseph David Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Joseph David Murray seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murray has not made the req*165uisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and iegal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2805 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase the amount 

made available to purchase commodities for the emergency food assistance program in fiscal year 2010. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase 

the amount made available to purchase commodities for 

the emergency food assistance program in fiscal year 

2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that— 

5 (1) more than 1 in 7 households in the United 

6 States struggled to find enough to eat during 2008; 

7 (2) poverty is the primary cause of food insecu8 rity and hunger in the United States; 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2805 IS

1 (3) the annual report of the Economic Research 

2 Service of the Department of Agriculture on house3 hold food security in the United States found that 

4 in 2008, 17,000,000 households were food insecure, 

5 an increase from 13,000,000 households in 2007; 

6 (4) the term ‘‘low food security’’ means people 

7 being unable to consistently get enough to eat and 

8 the term ‘‘very low food security’’ means people 

9 being hungry at various times over the year and 

10 being unable to eat because of lack of money to pur11 chase food; 

12 (5) the 17,000,000 food insecure households in 

13 the United States are home to 49,000,000 Ameri14 cans, of whom— 

15 (A) 17,000,000 are children, among whom 

16 nearly 500,000 in the developmentally critical 

17 years under the age of 6 are going hungry; and 

18 (B) 12,000,000 adults and 5,200,000 chil19 dren reported experiencing severe hunger, pos20 sibly going days without eating; 

21 (6) good nutrition is necessary for learning and 

22 academic achievement; and 

23 (7) Black and Hispanic households experienced 

24 food insecurity at far higher rates (25.7 percent in 

25 the case of Black households and 26.9 percent in the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2805 IS

1 case of Hispanic households) than the national aver2 age. 

3 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF COMMODITIES FOR THE EMER4 GENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

5 Section 27(a)(2) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

6 2009 (7 U.S.C. 2036(a)(2)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub10 paragraph (E); 

11 (3) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘each of fiscal years 2010 

13 through 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal year 

14 2012’’; and 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘subparagraph (D)’’; and 

17 (4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol18 lowing: 

19 ‘‘(C) for fiscal year 2010, $500,000,000; 

20 ‘‘(D) for fiscal year 2011, $250,000,000, 

21 as adjusted in accordance with subparagraph 

22 (E); and’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2650 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2650

            To suspend temporarily the duty on stator/rotor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

  Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on stator/rotor.

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

SECTION 1. STATOR/ROTOR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Stator/rotor parts  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        designed for use                                                   31/2011.......
                        in a combined
                        generator/
                        electric motor,
                        with motor
                        function rated at
                        100kW, the
                        foregoing
                        certified by the
                        importer for use
                        in hybrid
                        electric vehicles
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8503.00.95)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135132 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: 135132 COA: 271154 Wayne CC: 06-001959-01 JOSEPH HINES, III, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 11, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0114 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.

January 22, 2008

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 2 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 2

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That effective from January 3, 2005, the joint committee created by 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 94 (108th Congress), to make the necessary 
arrangements for the inauguration, is hereby continued with the same 
power and authority provided for in that resolution.
    Sec. 2. Effective from January 4, 2005, the provisions of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 93 (108th Congress), to authorize the rotunda of 
the United States Capitol to be used in connection with the proceedings 
and ceremonies for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice 
President-elect of the United States, are continued with the same power 
and authority provided for in that resolution.

            Passed the Senate January 4, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 2

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 To extend the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies and the provisions of S. Con. Res. 93 and S. Con. Res. 94 of 
                    the One Hundred Eighth Congress.
```
#### In the Matter of Brendan N., a Neglected Child. Columbia County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Arthur N., Appellant. (And Other Proceedings.)

Submitted December 20, 2010;

decided January 18, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.