alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Continental Insurance Company et al., Appellants, v Alisa Lulanaj et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 450]

a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated July 27, 2005, which, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay the arbitration.

*615Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The additional respondent Utica Mutual Insurance Company demonstrated that it met the requirements set forth in *Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co.*(19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]) to disclaim coverage on the ground of lack of cooperation of its insured, Paldo Express *(see Allstate Ins. Co. v United Intl. Ins. Co.,*16 AD3d 605 [2005]). Accordingly, the Paldo Express vehicle was uninsured and, as such, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Schmidt, J.P, Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 769 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 769

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols 
 and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who 
                          celebrate Christmas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 17, 2019

Mr. Lamborn (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Babin, Mr. Banks, Mr. Cole, 
  Mr. Conaway, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, Mr. 
   King of Iowa, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Wenstrup, and Mr. Grothman) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols 
 and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who 
                          celebrate Christmas.

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution, in 
        prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any 
        mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions 
        of Christmas;
            (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to 
        Christmas; and
            (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and 
        traditions by those who celebrate Christmas.
                                 <all>
```
# table137_q15.1_state
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1280

XIANG YANG,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of An Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: September 16, 2015 Decided: September 30, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Farah Loftus, LAW OFFICE OF FARAH LOFTUS, Los Angeles, 

California, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Neelam Ihsanullah, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xiang Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic 

of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal of the 

Immigration Judge’s denial of Yang’s requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, 

including the transcript of Yang’s merits hearing, her asylum 

application, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the 

record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 

(2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Yang (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

PETITION DENIED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-77,246-11

IN RE DRAKE LAFAYETTE WILLIS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. F-0824020-T IN THE 283RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that on April 4, 2013, he filed a supplemental

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the 283rd District Court of Dallas County and that this

supplemental application was never forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Dallas

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the supplemental application

or stating that Relator has not filed such an application. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such

response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.
2

Filed: July 22, 2015

Do not publish
@conference{1216106,
  author = {Ana Nikolov and Milos Drobnjakovic and Boonserm Kulvatunyou},
  title = {Produce it sustainably: Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomanufacturing Process through the Ontology Lens},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-21 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the APMS 2023 IFIP International Conference; Advances in Production Management Systems
"Production Management Systems for Responsible Manufacturing, Service and Logistics Future", Trondheim, NO},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936957},
  language = {en},
}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41501 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-FLORES, also known as Simon Millan-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-563-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Rodriguez-Flores appeals the revocation of his supervised release based on his being found illegally in the United States after deportation in violation of the conditions of his supervised release. He argues that his underlying conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). A defendant may not use the revocation of supervised release to challenge his sentence for the underlying offense based on Apprendi for the first time. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-41501 -2- United States v. Moody , 277 F.3d 719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Rodriguez-Flores may not challenge his underlying conviction in this appeal of the revocation of his supervised release. See id
. Nonetheless, Rodriguez-Flores acknowledges that his attack on his conviction is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but seeks to preserve it for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres . Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496. This court must follow Almendarez-Torres until the Supreme Court overrules it. United States v. Hernandez-Avalos , 251 F.3d 505, 507 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 24, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 24, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24A1137. THE STATE v. CORTEZ CEMAL BRYANT.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On April 09, 2024, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than April 19, 2024. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
# table36_q5.1_size
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Fugett v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1934.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2014-O HIO -1934
F UGETT , A PPELLANT , v. T URNER , W ARDEN , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in the Oh io Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Fugett v. Turner, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1934.] Habeas corpus—R.C. 2725.04(D)—Failure to attach copies of commitment orders—Res judicata bars claim—Judgment affirmed and writ denied. (No. 2013-1350—Submitted April 30, 2014—Decided May 14, 2014.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-13-30.

____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Donald Lee Fugett appeals the Thir d District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. For the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed Fu gett’s petition, and we affirm. {¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly found that Fugett failed to attach all required copies of his commitment orders and thus failed to comply with R.C. 2725.04(D). This omission renders the petiti on fatally defective and subject to
dismissal. Day v. Wilson , 116 Ohio St.3d 566, 2008-Ohio-82, 880 N.E.2d 919,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 ¶ 4, citing Tisdale v. Eberlin , 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 6. {¶ 3} The court of appeals also correct ly found that Fugett had filed a previous action for a writ of habeas corpus, Fugett v. Jeffreys , 108 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2006-Ohio-1329, 844 N.E.2d 852, and any valid claim could have been raised in that case. Therefore, the current case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Nickelson v. Knab , 131 Ohio St.3d 199, 2012-Ohio-579, 963 N.E.2d 154, ¶ 1, citing Hazel v. Knab , 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378, ¶ 2. {¶ 4} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

____________________ Donald Lee Fugett, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Thelma Thomas Price, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

_________________________
@misc{1214031,
  author = {Mark Trapnell and Eric Trapnell and Murugiah Souppaya and Bob Gendler and Dan Brodjieski and Allen Golbig and Karen Scarfone and Blair Heiserman},
  title = {Automated Secure Configuration Guidance from the macOS Security Compliance Project (mSCP)},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-20 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936884},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-219r1},
  language = {en},
}
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 68 5- CR J ames R. HIA TT , Appellant
v . The STA TE of

Te xas , Appellee F ro m th e 14 4th

Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t, B e xar County , T e xas Trial Court No. 2006-CR-2741 Honora ble Catherine T orre s-Stahl, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: October 8, 2008 DI SMI SSED FOR WANT OF JURI SDI CTI ON Appellant wa s sentence d on May 30, 2008. A timely

mot i o n for ne w trial wa s filed, and there fore appellant’ s notice of a ppeal wa s due t o be filed on Aug ust 28, 2008; a motion for ext ension of time to f

ile a notice of

appea l was due on Septe mber 12, 2008. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a), 26.3. Appellant filed his noti ce of appea l in the trial court on September 4, 2008, but did not file a motion for ex tension of t ime to file a late notice of appea l in this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. W hen a noti ce of appea l and a motion for ex tension of t ime are not filed wit hin the fifteen-da y g rac e per iod04
- 08
- 00 68 5- CR

- 2- afte r the deadline for filing notice of appe al, the appe llate cour t lacks jurisdiction. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .3 ; Ol iv o v . S

tat e , 9 18 S.W. 2d

51 9, 52 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); see also Ater v . Eighth Court of Ap pe als , 802 S.W .2d 241, 243 (Tex. C ri m . App. 1991) (out- of-time appe al from f inal felony conviction may b e s o u gh t by filing a writ of habe as cor

pus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Te x as Cod e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re ). We i ssu e d a n o rd e r o n Se pt emb er 19 , 2 00 8 d ir e c tin g a pp e lla nt t o s h o w ca use why this appeal should not be dismissed for lac k of jurisdiction. Appellant’s c ounsel responde d in writing a

nd ag ree d that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appe al. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .3 ; Olivo , 918 S.W .2d at 522. Acc ording ly , the appe al is dismis sed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
##### 

10K


Exhibit 21

Parent and Subsidiaries

UST Inc. is an independent corporation without a parent. It had
the following significant subsidiaries as of December 31,
2005:

|                                                             |  |                 |            |                 |              |  |      | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------- | ---------- | --------------- | ------------ |  | ---- | 
|                                                             |  |                 |           
|                                                             |  |                 |            | Percentage of   |             
|                                                             |  |                 |            | Ownership by    |             
|                                                             |  |                 |            | UST Inc. or its |             
|                                                             |  | Jurisdiction of |            |                 | Wholly       | 
|                                                             |  | Incorporation   |            |                 | Owned        | 
|Name of Subsidiary or Affiliate                              |  | or Registration |            |                 | Subsidiaries | 
|                                                             |  |                 |           
|International Wine &
    Spirits Ltd.                        |  |                 | Delaware   |                 |              |  | 100% | 
|Ste. Michelle Wine Estates
    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% | 







77
SCWC-11-0000350 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-11-0000350 

27-JUL-2015 

10:15 AM 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII 

In the Matter of the Arbitration
 

of
 

NORDIC PCL CONSTRUCTION, INC., fka NORDIC CONSTRUCTION, LTD.,
 

Respondent/Claimant/Counterclaim Respondent-Appellant,
 

vs.
 

LPIHGC, LLC,
 

Petitioner/Respondent/Counterclaimant-Appellee.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-11-0000350; S.P. NO. 10-1-0346)
 

ORDER OF CORRECTION
 

(By: McKenna, J.)
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court, 

filed on July 23, 2015, is corrected as follows: 

1. On page 3, line 9, insert the word “to,” so that 

the phrase reads “unable to determine.” 

2. On page 5, line 21, insert an open parenthesis, so 

that the text reads “(“O’Toole”).” 

3. On page 15, footnote 9, line 3, delete the phrase 

“there were.” 
 

4. On page 20, line 16, the footnote number “13” 

should be in plain (not bold) text. 

5. On page 29, on the first line following the quoted 

text, replace “22” with “82 P.3d.” 

6. On page 31, line 12, capitalize the letter “p” in 

“p.3d.” 

7. On page 36, line 1, delete the word “and” so that 

the phrase reads “appropriately remanded.” 

8. On page 37, line 16 of the quoted text, delete the 

underlined space after the word “parties,” and on line 5 

following the quoted text, insert the word “the” so that the 

phrase reads “drafted by the National Conference of 

Commissioners.” 

9. On page 53, line 5, insert a closed quotation mark 

after “partiality.” 

10. On page 57, line 5, delete the letter “s” after 

the word “quotation” and insert the word “marks.” 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all 

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these 

changes. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 27, 2015. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

Associate Justice 

2
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 786 

Supporting the designation of January 11, 2020, as ‘‘National Martha 

Hughes Cannon Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2020 

Mr. CURTIS (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. STEWART, and Mr. 

MCADAMS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of January 11, 2020, as 

‘‘National Martha Hughes Cannon Day’’. 

Whereas Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon was born on July 1, 

1857, and moved to the Territory of Utah when she was 

young; 

Whereas Dr. Cannon earned numerous academic degrees and 

became the resident physician at the women-run Deseret 

Hospital in Salt Lake City; 

Whereas Dr. Cannon was a strong advocate for women’s 

rights and integral to ensuring that women’s enfranchisement was included in the State of Utah’s Constitution; 

Whereas, in 1896, Dr. Cannon defeated her husband in a 

State Senate election and became the first woman to 

serve in a State Senate; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 786 IH 

Whereas Dr. Cannon was sworn in to the Utah State Senate 

on January 11, 1897; 

Whereas because of her leadership, thousands of women have 

served in State legislatures, including over 500 women 

who followed in her footsteps and served as State Senators in 2019; and 

Whereas Dr. Cannon was a pioneer for women in government 

and helped pave the path for the many women who serve 

today: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of National Mar3 tha Hughes Cannon Day; 

4 (2) recognizes the value that women bring to 

5 good governance; and 

6 (3) encourages women to become involved in 

7 Federal, State, and local government. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00012-CV

John E. RODARTE, Sr.,

Appellant

v.

Ralph LOPEZ, et al,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CI-18884

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

John E. Rodarte Sr. filed a bill of review in the trial court, seeking to set aside a 

December 2011 final judgment. The trial court summarily denied the bill of review on October 

20, 2014, and Rodarte timely appealed that ruling. The record and Rodarte’s brief have been 

filed.

Appellees have file a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of res judicata and law 

of the case. We deny the motion. Rodarte timely appealed the final judgment in a bill of review 

proceeding and this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

The appellees’ brief is past due. If appellees desire to file a brief, they must do so by 

July 27, 2015. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 oftitle 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of OsirisTherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best ofeach officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 11, 2009 |   | /s/ C. RANDAL MILLS                          |
|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.                       |
|                    |   | President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |   |                                         |
| Date: May 11, 2009 |   | /s/ RICHARD W. HUNT                          |
|                    |   | Richard W. Hunt                              |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |

 

 

This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q towhich it relates, is not deemed filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VERNA AGGIE, THE PRESCHOOL

ACADEMY, INC.,

 Petitioners

 v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,

OFFICE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT

AND EARLY LEARNING,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 188 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

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

DENIED.