alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-5091.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2001.

*949Before RADER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
RCM 2.8

RCM 2.8 Lump-sum Death Payments Revised Feb 18, 2014 Page 1 of 1

See FOM1 605 for general LSDP procedure.

Appendices

Appendix A - Legislative History

See FOM1 Art 6 App A.

Appendix B - Tax Exempt Organizations

See FOM1 Art 6 App B.

Appendix C - Payment Of LSDP Before 10-30-66

See FOM1 Art 6 App F.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 655 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 50
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 655

                          [Report No. 116-263]

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 296) affirming 
           the United States record on the Armenian Genocide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 296) affirming 
           the United States record on the Armenian Genocide.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the resolution (H. Res. 296) affirming the United States record 
on the Armenian Genocide. The resolution shall be considered as read. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 
and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
                                                  House Calendar No. 50

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 655

                          [Report No. 116-263]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 296) affirming 
           the United States record on the Armenian Genocide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 28, 2019

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
S04A1666.

#### GRIFFIN v. THE STATE.

(604 SE2d 155)

Decided October 12, 2004

Reconsideration denied November 22, 2004.

Connell Griffin, *pro se.*

*Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Elizabeth A. Baker, Laura A. Janssen, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General,*for appellee.

HUNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant, an inmate, filed a direct appeal seeking review of the trial court’s April 15, 2004 order denying his motions for writ of mandamus and for writ of prohibition regarding his demand for a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motions in a written order entered April 15, 2004 and appellant filed this appeal with the Court of Appeals which transferred it to this Court, properly noting in the order transferring the appeal that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal since it involves an extraordinary remedy, see 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (5). It appears from the record presented that appellant filed the motions for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition in order to force the trial court to rule on his motion for discharge and acquittal. The trial court ruled on appellant’s motions finding that the motion for discharge and acquittal became moot after appellant entered a guilty plea to the charges in the indictment. *Davis v. State,*251 Ga. App. 436 (554 SE2d 583) (2001) (guilty plea waives right to appeal speedy trial issues). Having voluntarily entered a plea of guilty, appellant cannot raise as a defense his right to a speedy trial. See *Tutt v. State,*267 Ga. 49 (472 SE2d 306) (1996); *Mason v. Banks,*242 Ga. 292 (2) (248 SE2d 664) (1978).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No . 07 - 20 - 00260 - CV

________________________ GEORGE RUSSEY PARR IV , APPELLANT

V. JOANNA BASS , APPELLEE O n Appeal from the County Court at Law N umber 2

Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 69 , 386 - L2 ; Honorable Matthew C. Martindale , Presiding October 22 , 20 20 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Appellant, George Russey Parr IV , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Revoke Suspension of Commitment without paying the requisite filing fee. By letter of September 28 , 2020, the clerk of this court notified Parr that the filing fee was overdue and that unless h e was excused from paying court costs under Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, failure to pay the filing fee by October 82

would result in dismissal of the appeal. To date, Parr has not paid the filing fee or sought leave to proceed without payment of court costs. Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the clerk of this court is required to collect filing fees set by statute or by the Texas Supreme Court when an item is presented for filing. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 5, 12.1(b) , 20.1 . Although the filing of a proper notice of appeal invokes an appellate court ’ s jurisdiction, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed. T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.1(b). Because Parr has failed to comply wit h a requirement of the appellate rules and a notice from the c lerk requiring action within a specified time, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). Per Curiam
**IMMUCELL CORPORATION**

**EXHIBIT 32**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImmuCell Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael F. Brigham, President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company. 

Thiscertification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (Item 601(b)(32)) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the Exchange Act). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liabilityof that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. 

/s/ Michael F. Brigham 

Michael F. Brigham

President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer 

March 29, 2010 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImmuCell Corporation and will be retained by ImmuCell Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
@article{1209541,
  author = {Andrew Madison and Adam L. Pintar and Craig R. Copeland and Natalia Farkas and Samuel M. Stavis},
  title = {Letter to the Editor Concerning "Simultaneous, Single-Particle Measurements of Size and Loading Give Insights into the Structure of Drug-Delivery Nanoparticles"},
  year = {2023},
  number = {17},
  month = {2023-05-23 04:05:00},
  publisher = {ACS Nano},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934683},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c04894 },
  language = {en},
}
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors
Northeast Bancorp

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-85206), (No. 33-32095), (No. 33-58538), (No. 33-32096) and (No. 33-87976) of Northeast Bancorp of our report dated August 1, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2003.

|                   | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|------------------ | -------------------------
|Portland, Maine    | Baker Newman & Noyes     
|September 23, 2003 | Limited Liability Company
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           8,018
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         73,627
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,785
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             93,407
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,477
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 149,785
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 23,142
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,142
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,954
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,188
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,477
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              19,872
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,899
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,268
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.19
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,100
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,671
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   10,062
<RECOVERIES>                                     7,766
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,852
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
#### BRUSH v. HARKINS (three cases).

Nos. 924-926.

United States District Court S. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 25, 1950.

See also 9 F.R.D. 604.

*682Theodore Beezley, Springfield, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Wm. P, Sanford, Miller & Fairman, Springfield, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

By a subpoena dated January 5, 1950, and issued at the instance of defendant, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs was commanded to “bring with you all papers, reports, statements of witnesses, diagrams of scene of accident, accident reports, correspondence, made or taken by him or written by him or to him and pertaining to an accident occurring October 5, 1949.”

This subpoena duces tecum was called for and issued pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. This rule has been amended so as to make it subject to the provisions of Rule 26 and Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and furthermore, subject to “subdivision (b) of this Rule 45.”

1. It is obvious from an examination of the rule, as amended, that it was designed to put limitations upon the use of the rule as in this case. Since the deponent is one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in the case, the matter called for would be a clear invasion, not only of his privileges as an attorney, but would be out of harmony with the case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, loc. cit. 510, 67 S.Ct. 385, 393, 91 L.Ed. 451, where the court said: “Here is simply an attempt, without purported necessity or justification, to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party’s counsel in the course of his legal duties. *As*such, *it falls outside the arena of discovery ' and contravenes the public policy underlying the orderly prosecution and defense of legal .claims. Not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted in■quiries into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney.”*(Emphasis mine.)

2. It is not contemplated by the decisions in any case that a lawyer, as an attorney in a case, might be called to give testimony against his client. This would not only violate the privilege protecting the relationship of attorney and client but, as said by the court in the Hickman case, supra, it would contravene public policy.

3. It would be permissible for counsel to file a motion for the production of photographs which might illustrate the appearance of conditions at the scene of the accident but it is doubtful if counsel should be required to produce “diagrams of scene of accident” for the reason that these are drawings designed to illustrate counsel’s notion of the accident, and would not in any way reflect or illustrate the testimony of witnesses. Moreover, adversary counsel could prepare his own diagrams.

The matter called for by the subpoena does not fall within Rule 34 which authorizes the production of “ * * * letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged * *

The motion to quash the subpoena should be and will be sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         15,905
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                   633
<INVENTORY>                                    16,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               66,078
<PP&E>                                         110,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                 51,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,648
<BONDS>                                        105,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,000
<COMMON>                                       713
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,901
<SALES>                                        267,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               267,119
<CGS>                                          221,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               20,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,470
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                 96
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (73)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.99
        

</TABLE>
@article{1212721,
  author = {Assane Gueye and Carlos Eduardo Cardoso Galhardo and Irena Bojanova},
  title = {Critical Software Security Weaknesses},
  year = {2023},
  number = {25},
  month = {2023-08-01 04:08:00},
  publisher = {IEEE IT Professional},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956331},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2023.3297387},
  language = {en},
}
##### 



EXHIBIT 21


Parent and Subsidiaries

UST Inc. is an independent corporation without
parent. It had the following significant subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2003:

|                                  |                                                              |                 |          |               |  |  |      |      | 
|--------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------- | -------- | ------------- |  |  | ---- | ---- | 
|                                  |                                                              |                 |          | Percentage of
|                                  |                                                              |                 |          | Ownership by 
|                                  |                                                              | Jurisdiction of |          | UST or its   
|                                  |                                                              | Incorporation   |          | Wholly Owned 
|Name of Subsidiary or Affiliate   |                                                              | or Registration |          | Subsidiaries 
|                                  |                                                              |                 |          |              
|International Wine & Spirits Ltd. |                                                              |                 | Delaware |               |  |  | 100% |     
|                                  | Stimson Lane Ltd.                                            |                 |          | Washington    |  |  |      | 100% | 
|U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company    |                                                              |                 | Delaware |               |  |  | 100% |     
|                                  | U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Limited
    Partnership |                 |          | Delaware      |  |  |      | 100% | 
|                                  | U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Brands Inc.                           |                 |          | Delaware      |  |  |      | 100% | 

Certain subsidiaries have been omitted since, if
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would
not constitute a significant subsidiary.
s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00440-CV

Joe and Janie GOMEZ,

Appellants

v.

Thomas DASHIELL,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-241-CCL

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 29, 2015, appellants filed what this court is construing as a notice of appeal from 

the county court’s June 18, 2015 judgment of eviction. On July 6, 2015, appellants filed an 

affidavit of inability to pay costs in this court. It appears appellants also filed the affidavit in the 

trial court. The affidavit was filed in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal as 

required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c)(1). 

We order the clerk of this court to send copies of the affidavit and this order to the trial 

court, the trial court clerk, the court reporter, and all parties and/or counsel. See id. R. 20.1(d)(2). 

We further order that any contest to appellants’ affidavit of indigence must be filed on or 

before July 31, 2015. Any contest must be filed in this court. See id. R. 20.1(e)(1). If no 

contest is timely filed, appellants allegations, as set forth in the affidavit of inability to pay costs, 

will be deemed true, and they will be permitted to proceed without payment of costs, including 

costs for the appellate record. See id. R. 20.1(f).

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Health Information
#### Klaudio Trombin et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Muhammad H. Rahman et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 14]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), entered February 6, 2006, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict was properly denied since, based on the trial evidence, the jury could have rationally concluded *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]) that on the occasion in question defendant taxicab operator Rahman unavoidably lost control of his vehicle after hitting a pothole and, accordingly, was not negligent in connection with the accident in which plaintiff Klaudio Trombin, his passenger, was injured.

The trial court properly permitted defendants’ orthopedist to testify as to his interpretation of the MRI films of plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine, since he had reviewed the actual films and plaintiffs had notified the court of their intention to introduce the films into evidence (see *Wagman v Bradshaw,*292 AD2d 84 [2002]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.