alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
interested); Gumm v. State, Dep't of Educ., 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 

853, 856 (2005) (explaining that this court will exercise its discretion to 

issue a writ only upon showing a clear, legal right to relief). Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

, J. 

Gibbons 

Adm. J. 

Pickering 

cc: David Lee Phillips & Associates 

Selman Breitman, LLP 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

ORDER
Amy Ronayne Krause
Stonecrest Building Company v Chicago Title Insurance Company Presiding Judge
Docket No. 319841/319842 Kirsten Frank Kelly
LC No. 2008-001055 CH Douglas B. Shapiro
Judges

The Court orders that the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and this Court's
opinion issued April 7, 2015 is hereby VACATED. A new opinion is attached to this order.

Kelly, K. F., J., would deny the motion for reconsideration.

HL 21285 QD 4: @

Date Chief Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10-o-2


Executives of the Company who are party to a Change of Control Agreement

1.  C.M. Jones
2.  B.M. Abzug
3.  G.R. Chadick
4.  R.M. Chiusano
5.  L.A. Erickson
6.  J.J. Gaspar
7.  N.J. Keating
8.  H.M. Reininga
9.  W.J. Richter
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31269-31270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-53-001]


Easton Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

June 24, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 22, 2009, Easton Utilities Commission 
filed a Supplemental Prepared Direct Testimony by John E. Hines III, 
P.E. designated as Exhibit No. EUC-9, supporting information designated 
as Exhibit No. EUC-10, and its Rate Schedule for Reactive Service, 
designated at Rate Schedule No. 1, Original Sheet No. 1, to supplement 
its Petition for Declaratory Order filed with the Commission on May 6, 
2009 under Docket No. EL09-53-000.
    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 14 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 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 e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f191a0d1c10313336313a0c2a2f2f302d2b1f393a2d3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c2a293e2f2302000502093f191c1c031e182c0a091e0f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 31270]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 2, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15458 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


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

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                              [STOCK CERTIFICATE]

<TABLE>
<S>                                                         <C>
          NUMBER                                                            SHARES
                                     AMERICAN
     APP                        APP  PHARMACEUTICAL
                                     PARTNERS, INC.

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS                                   SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
  OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE                                            CUSIP 02889P 10 9

This Certifies that





is the record holder of
</TABLE>

   FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE, OF

------------------- AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL PARTNERS, INC. ---------------------

transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or
by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly
endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar.
   WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

   Dated:

<TABLE>
<S>                                   <C>                                    <C>
   /s/ Derek J. Brown                   [AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL                  /s/ Patrick Soon-Shiong
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER &               PARTNERS, INC. SEAL]                 PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                                                                & CHAIRMAN
</TABLE>


COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
       (NEW YORK, NEW YORK)
BY         TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
                     AUTHORIZED OFFICER
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

July 21, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00603-CV

IN RE TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2001-35725

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 14, 2015, relator Ted Lawrence Robertson filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator named the Honorable Eva M. Guzman, 

former judge of the 309th District Court and currently a justice on the Texas 

Supreme Court, and the Honorable James D. Squier, former judge of the 312th 
2

District Court, as respondents.1 Relator requests that we compel respondents to 

vacate a protective order entered at a default hearing on August 15, 2001. Relator 

was subsequently convicted of violating the protective order and claims the order 

is void. 

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the 

mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a “judge of a 

district or county court in the court of appeals district”; and (2) all writs necessary 

to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. We 

do not have jurisdiction over a former district judge or any Texas Supreme Court 

justice, and relator has not shown that issuance of a writ is necessary to enforce our 

jurisdiction.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.

 1 Relator names the Honorable Michael Squire as one of the respondents. However, there is no 

current or former district judge of that name. We believe relator meant to name Judge James D. Squier.
<Page>

                         INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
                                    DELAWARE

*[no. of certificate]*                                         *[no. of shares]*



                     GREAT WESTERN LAND AND RECREATION, INC.
                The Corporation is authorized to issue 50,000,000
              shares of Common Stock, par value .001 per share
       and 20,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value .001 per share.

THIS CERTIFIES THAT ____________________________________________________
IS THE
REGISTERED HOLDER OF ____________________________________________________ SHARES
         OF THE COMMON STOCK OF GREAT WESTERN LAND AND RECREATION, INC.
TRANSFERABLE ONLY ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF IN PERSON
OR BY ATTORNEY UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED

IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE SAID CORPORATION HAS CAUSED THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE SIGNED
BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND ITS CORPORATE SEAL TO BE HEREUNTO AFFIXED

                               THIS ___________ DAY OF ____________ A.D._____



__________________________________              ________________________________
[COB, President or VP]                          [Treasurer or Secretary]


<Page>

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ______ HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO
________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________ SHARES
REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE, AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND
APPOINT _________________________________________ ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID
SHARES ON THE BOOKS OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF
SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

         DATED ________________, _____

                 IN PRESENCE OF

                                            ___________________________________
         ___________________________________

        NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE
FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7169

JAMAR DELMONT ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-05-4-FBS)

Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 17, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamar Delmont Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jamar Delmont Robinson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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

for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (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

Robinson 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
#### AMERICAN LECITHIN CO. v. W. A. CLEARY CORPORATION.

Civil Action No. 822.

District Court, D. New Jersey.

Jan. 14, 1941.

Roger Hinds, of New York City (John W. Thompson and Daniel L. Morris, both *604of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Morgan R. Seiffert, of New Brunswick, N. J., for defendant.

WALKER, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on motion for order requiring the plaintiff to more specifically and more, completely answer Interrogatory No. 6 (reserved by order dated November 18, 1940, filed November 18, 1940).

Rules 26 to 37, inclusive, of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, relating to depositions, discovery, depositions on oral examination and written interrogatories, interrogatories to parties, discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, copying, or photographing, and the admission of facts and genuineness of documents were formulated with the intention of granting the widest latitude in ascertaining before trial facts concerning the real issues in dispute, and permitting the interrogatories to parties in connection with any relevant matter in order to make available the facts pertinent to the issues to be decided at the trial and eliminate all expense and difficulty that would be involved in their production at the trial. They were formulated with a view to simplifying the issues. Nichols v. Sanborn Co., D. C. Mass., 1938, 24 F.Supp. 908, 910.

In view of the foregoing this court feels that a more specific and more complete answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is necessary.
# annual_report_raw_data_spreadsh
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 947 

Expressing support for the designation of May 7, 2020, as a ‘‘National 

Day of Reason’’ and recognizing the central importance of reason in 

the betterment of humanity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2020 

Mr. RASKIN (for himself, Mr. HUFFMAN, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. MCNERNEY) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 7, 2020, 

as a ‘‘National Day of Reason’’ and recognizing the 

central importance of reason in the betterment of humanity. 

Whereas the application of reason has been the essential precondition for humanity’s extraordinary scientific, medical, 

technological, and social progress since the modern Enlightenment; 

Whereas reason provides vital hope today for confronting the 

environmental crises of our day, including the 

civilizational emergency of climate change, and for cultivating the rule of law, democratic institutions, justice, 

and peace among nations; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 947 IH 

Whereas irrationality, magical thinking, and superstition have 

undermined the national effort to combat the COVID–19 

pandemic, and reason is fundamental to creating an effective coordinated response to beat the virus involving 

the Federal Government, the States, and the scientific 

and medical communities; 

Whereas America’s Founders insisted upon the primacy of 

reason and knowledge in public life, and drafted the Constitution to prevent official establishment of religion and 

to protect freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in civil 

society; 

Whereas James Madison, author of the First Amendment 

and fourth President of the United States, stated that 

‘‘The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only 

guardian of true liberty’’, and ‘‘Knowledge will forever 

govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own 

governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives’’; and 

Whereas, May 7, 2020, would be an appropriate date to designate as a ‘‘National Day of Reason’’: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a ‘‘National 

3 Day of Reason’’; and 

4 (2) encourages all citizens, residents, and visi5 tors to join in observing this day and focusing on the 

6 central importance of reason, critical thought, the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 947 IH 

1 scientific method, and free inquiry to resolving social 

2 problems and promoting the welfare of humankind. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certificationof Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, C. RandalMills, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s), and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)         [Paragraphomitted in accordance with SEC Release 34-47986]

(c)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 13,2006

 
|        |   | /s/ C. Randal Mills     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.  |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 7, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 70 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cr-0 01 71 -GKS-KRS- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us GERALDO AN TONIO CEDENO -REYES, a.k .a. Mel vi n Go m ez, a.k .a. Vict orJav ie r Ocas io Orte ga , Defen da nt- App el lant .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 7, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Saying hi s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le , Geral do Ant on io Ced en o- Reyes ap pe al s h is 39 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e, im po se d a fte r pl ead in g g ui lty to on e co un t o f fal se ly im pe rs on at in g aUni te d S ta te s ci ti zen , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 11 (“ Co un t 1 "), o ne co un t o f fal se ly repre se nt in g aso ci al sec ur ity nu m be r, invi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. § 4 08 (a)( 7) (B) (“ Co un t 2 "), o ne co un t o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a)(1 ) (“ Co un t 3 "), an d on e co un t o f il le ga l re en try of a d ep orte d a li en , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) (“ Co un t 4 "). Bri efl y st at ed , th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d i ts sen te nc e b ecau se Ced en o- Reyes en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s af te r al ready

ha vi ng be ende po rte d, an d u se d afal se ali as on 11 oc cas io ns inord er t o t ak e adva nt ag e o f ev erythi ng he co ul d. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (2 ) (n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of o ffen se , hi st ory of d efen dant , and ne edfor de te rren ce). Furth er, i t co ns id eredCed en o- Reyes’s gu il ty ple a an d co op erat io n wi th th e g ov ern m en t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) (h is to ry of d efen da nt ). Ced en o- Reyes’s se nt en ce i s the m in im um po ss ib le sen te nc e withi n the ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne ran ge an d i s m or e th an18 y ears les s tha n the m ax im um st atut ory 2pe na lty

of 2 2 years t ha t h e fac ed . Se e 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(2 ) (2 0- y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um ); 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a), (b ) (m an da to ry co ns ecu ti ve 2-year s en te nc e). Ced en o- Reyes h as no t d em on st rat edth atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n wh enitweig he d the 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d tha t h is sen te nc e was , th eref

or e, subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

3
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a NewJersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q/A for the quarter ended September30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), that tohis knowledge: 

1. 

The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

2. 

The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Ronald A. Durando                               Ronald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer 

April 21, 2010

----
# table112_q13.3_naics