alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte CHIN BEN SHIM.

No. 6311.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

March 10, 1941.

Clarence W. Rowley, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

Edmund J. Brandon, U. S. Atty., and William J. Koen, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

The following statement may be taken, transcribed, and filed with the papers in the case.

This is a motion by Chin Ben Shim entitled “Waiver of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice”.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was heard some time ago, and was decided against the petitioner. An order dismissing the petition and denying the writ having been entered, the petitioner filed in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court a notice of appeal. The effect of the filing of the notice of appeal is to transfer jurisdiction of the cause to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and I am without power to allow the motion insofar as it amounts to a prayer for such waiver. Nor if there were jurisdiction in this court to permit a waiver of appeal, do I think that after judgment and against the respondent’s objection I ought to grant a motion to dismiss the cause without prejudice.

The motion is denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.1



        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Michael Baker Corporation

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated March 15, 2002 appearing in the 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders of
Michael Baker Corporation (which report and consolidated financial statements
are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K) also included
an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) of this
Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 15, 2002
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000003213-DEC-201107:43 AM
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: David Lancaster v. Diane St. Yves, The Law Office of Diane 

St. Yves, P.L.L.C., Yexenia Gilmet d/b/a The Gilmet Law 

Firm, and Barbara Lancaster

Appellate case number: 01-17-00250-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-05066

Trial court: 247th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, David Lancaster, has filed a notice of appeal of the judgment signed on 

March 9, 2017 in the underlying trial court proceeding. Appellees, Diane St. Yves and 

The Law Office of Diane St. Yves, P.L.L.C., have filed a “Motion to Consolidate This 

Case with No. 01-16-00911-CV.” The motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 16, 2017
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,912]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 12, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of L and L Products, Romeo, Michigan.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15217 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Howard Rosengarten, P.C., Respondent, v Richard Hott, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 687]

Defendant’s contention that the materials sought are protected by the attorney-client privilege was not raised in opposi*329tion to the original motion to compel disclosure, and accordingly, it is not preserved *(see e.g. Murray v City of New York,*195 AD2d 379, 381 [1993]). Were we to consider the argument, we would find that the subject documents are material and necessary to the resolution of the instant action *(see*CPLR 3101 [a]; *Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]), and that defendant failed to sustain his burden of establishing that the documents are entitled to protection under the privilege *(see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank,*78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]; *Matter of Priest v Hennessy,*51 NY2d 62, 69 [1980]), or a federal court sealing order, or settlement agreements.

Defendant’s motion to renew was properly denied where he provided no reasonable justification for failing to present the facts on renewal on the original motion *(see Diaz v Ford Motor Co.,*29 AD3d 339, 340 [2006]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 5

- 00 355

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.K.P.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 279th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. F

- 189061

- C

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 28, 2015 , we notified the parties that this appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution unless arrangements were made for the filing of

the record or the appellant explained why additional time was needed to file the

record. On October 29 , 2015, we notified the parties that the filing fee had not been

paid and warned that the a ppeal would be dismissed unless the appellant remitted

the filing fee for the appeal. Appellan t did not respond to this Court’ s notices.

An appellant who wishes to proceed on appeal without payment of costs

must file an affidavit of indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. An appeal may be2 dismissed if the appellant fails to comply with a requirement of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure

, or fails to respond to a notice from the Clerk of the Court

requiring a response or other action within a specified time

. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(c).

Appellant did not file an affidavit of indigence on appeal and has not shown

that s he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 20.1. Appellant failed to comply with notices that required a response. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.3(c). There being no reasonable explanation for the failure to pay the

filing fee for the appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3.

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on December 22, 2015

Opinion Delivered December 23, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### Billy W. JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5029.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 7, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*950PER CURIAM.

Billy W. Jarvis appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, *Jarvis v. United States,*47 Fed.Cl. 698 (2000), finding him in material breach of his informant agreement with the Internal Revenue Service. We *affirm*on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
#### KENDALL v. UNITED AIR LINES, Inc., et al. SEBO v. UNITED AIR LINES, Inc. et al.

Civ. Nos. 47-501, 48-185.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 21, 1949.

*703Duer & Taylor, New York City, John S. Chapman, Jr., New York City, for plaintiffs.

Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, David L. Corbin, New York City, for United Air Lines, Inc.

Mendes & Mount, New York City, Theodore E. Wolcott, New York City, for Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

BONDY, District Judge.

The objection to interrogatory 99 propounded to James Edwards is sustained.

The objections to interrogatories relating to things found in the wreckage after the crash are overruled in view of the statement of plaintiffs’ attorney that every such interrogatory shall be considered reframed so as to substitute for the word “found” and phrase “found in the wreckage” the phrase “observed by you.”

All other objections are overruled.

An interrogatory is not objectionable because it calls for an expert opinion, especially where the expert is an engineer in the regular employ of the defendant. See Sachs v. Aluminum Co., 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 570; Schwartz v. Howard, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 443; Bergstrom Paper Co. v. Continental Insurance Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 548; Moran v. Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Co., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 594. Nor is an interrogatory subject to objection on the ground that the answer “will be inadmissible at trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissa•ble evidence.” Rule 26(b), Federal Rules Civil Procedure, as amended March 19, 1948, 28 U.S.C.A.

The objections to interrogatories based on 49 U.S.C.A. § 581 cannot be sustained because it does not appear that the content of any report of the Civil Aeronautics Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof is sought by those interrogatories. It does not even appear that the Board has made any report whatsoever.
Exhibit 13.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of BHP Billiton Plc and BHP Billiton Limited, (the
Companies) for the annual period ended 30 June 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Companies, hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, 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 Companies.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|                
|/s/ Peter Beaven
|Name:            |  | Peter Beaven           
|Title:           |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:            |  | 28 September 2017      

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
IMMUCELL CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 3.3

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

IMMUCELL CORPORATION

IMMUCELL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY:

FIRST: That pursuant to a unanimous written consent of the Board of Directors of ImmuCell Corporation, resolutions were duly
adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and directing that said amendment be considered at the next annual meeting of the stockholders of said
corporation. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:



|RESOLVED: | That this Board of Directors hereby declares it advisable that the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended by deleting paragraph FOURTH thereof in its entirety
and substituting therefor the following:
|--------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOURTH. The total number of shares which the corporation shall have authority
to issue is 8,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $.10 per share.

and that the foregoing proposed amendment be
considered at the next annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation.

SECOND: That thereafter, an annual meeting of the
stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in
favor of the aforesaid amendment.

THIRD: That said amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ImmuCell Corporation has
caused this Certificate to be signed by Thomas C. Hatch, its President, and attested by Frank E. Ruch, Jr., its Secretary, this 24thday of August,
1992.



IMMUCELL CORPORATIONBy:

/s/ Thomas C. HatchThomas C. HatchPresident






|        |  |                       
|------- |  | ----------------------
|ATTEST:
|        | 
|By:     |  | /s/ Frank E. Ruch, Jr.
|        |  | Frank E. Ruch, Jr.    
|        |  | Secretary
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10528

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00906-VEH

KYRA CARVER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF PELL CITY, ALABAMA, 

CHIEF GREGORY DEAN TURLEY, 

OFFICER FRANKLIN GREEN,

OFFICER RICHARD WOOD, 

OFFICER JAMES LEO JONES, 

individually and in their respective capacities 

as police officers of the City of Pell City, Alabama, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(July 20, 2015)

Case: 15-10528 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiff Kyra Carver brought this action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and the Alabama common law against defendants City of Pell City, Chief 

of Police Gregory Dean Turley, Officer Franklin Green, Officer Richard Woods, 

and Officer James Leo Jones. Chief Turley and Officers Green, Woods, and Jones 

were sued in their individual and official capacities. Carver’s complaint asserted 

claims arising from her May 16, 2011 arrest for the purchase of pseudoephedrine. 

After numerous submissions by the parties, the district court granted a motion for 

summary judgment filed by defendants.

Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Construing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to Carver, we conclude that there was no 

genuine issue of material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. The pharmacy logs obtained by defendants provided them with 

probable cause to arrest Carver using de minimis force, to incarcerate her until she 

made bail, and to prosecute her for the crime of purchasing excessive amounts of 

pseudoephedrine.

Case: 15-10528 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

At the time defendants arrested Carver they did not know that she had an 

affirmative defense, but as soon as her affirmative defense became known to them,

they dismissed the charges and explained to her employer that she had committed 

no crime.1

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

in favor of defendants based upon our conclusion that there is no liability under the 

undisputed facts of this case and for the reasons set forth in the district court’s 

thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Opinion filed on January 8, 2015.

AFFIRMED.

 1 Carver’s affirmative defense was that a certain amount of the pseudoephedrine she 

purchased was for children’s Sudafed. Because Alabama law then exempted purchases for 

children’s medication, Ala. Code § 20-2-190(c)(4) (2009), the prosecutors dismissed the charges 

against her.

Case: 15-10528 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 Page: 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Riven Flamenbaum, Deceased. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Respondent; Hannah K. Flamenbaum, Appellant; Israel Flamenbaum, Objectant-Respondent.

Submitted April 15, 2013;

decided August 27, 2013

*1033Motion to strike portions of the brief of respondent Vorderasiatisches Museum denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JONATHAN PENA,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 155 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Gina Marie Reitano. Jennifer Cangro, an Alleged Incapacitated Person, Appellant, v Mary V. Rosado, Respondent.

Submitted July 23, 2012;

decided August 30, 2012

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 26, 2012 dismissal order denied *[see*18 NY3d 985 (2012)]. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
@article{1213251,
  author = {D. Michelle Bailey and Eric Crump and Joseph T. Hodges and Adam Fleisher},
  title = {Direct frequency comb spectroscopy of HCN to evaluate line lists},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-12 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Faraday Discussions},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936266},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1039/D3FD00019B},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1211936,
  author = {Florian Bergmann and Meagan Papac and Nick Jungwirth and Bryan Bosworth and Tomasz Karpisz and Anna Osella and Lucas Enright and Eric Marksz and Angela Stelson and Chris Long and Nate Orloff},
  title = {Measuring the permittivity tensor of anisotropic DyScO3 to 110 GHz},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-14 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Applied Physics Letters},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936702},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Gold Bag, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2009 (the Report), I, Lance Ayers, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lance Ayers                                        
|Lance Ayers                                            
|Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
|July 14, 2009                                          

A signed original of this certification 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.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15292]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,718]


Weyerhaeuser Company, iLevel Dallas Sawmill, Dallas, OR; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 31, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Weyerhaeuser 
Company, iLevel Dallas Sawmill, Dallas, Oregon. The workers at the 
subject facility produced rough planed lumber.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15292 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30605-30606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Translating Research To Protect Health Through 
Health Promotion, Prevention, and Preparedness, Panel G, Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CD09-001, Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announce the aforementioned meeting:


[[Page 30606]]


    Time and Date: 12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., July 23, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of ``Translating Research To 
Protect Health Through Health Promotion, Prevention, and 
Preparedness, Panel E, FOA CD09-001, initial review.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Maurine Goodman, M.A., 
M.P.H., Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, 
NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404) 639-4737.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-15095 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P