alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

December 21, 2016

a1214 

# Order

Clerk December 21, 2016

154396 & (79)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 154396

COA: 325782

Wayne CC: 14

- 006454

- FH

GARY PATRICK LEWIS,

Defendant

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing whether the de nial of counsel to the defendant at his preliminary examination

is an error requiring automatic reversal or whether harmless error analysis applies. The

parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The application for leave to appeal as cross

- appellant remains pending.
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 32 PageID: 1
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 2 of 32 PageID: 2
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 3 of 32 PageID: 3
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 4 of 32 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 5 of 32 PageID: 5
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 6 of 32 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 7 of 32 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 8 of 32 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 9 of 32 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 10 of 32 PageID: 10
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 11 of 32 PageID: 11
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 12 of 32 PageID: 12
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 13 of 32 PageID: 13
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 14 of 32 PageID: 14
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 15 of 32 PageID: 15
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 16 of 32 PageID: 16
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 17 of 32 PageID: 17
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 18 of 32 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 19 of 32 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 20 of 32 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 21 of 32 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 22 of 32 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 23 of 32 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 24 of 32 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 25 of 32 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 26 of 32 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 27 of 32 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 28 of 32 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 29 of 32 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 30 of 32 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 31 of 32 PageID: 31
Case 2:11-cv-02919-JLL -CCC Document 1 Filed 05/20/11 Page 32 of 32 PageID: 32
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5287 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5287

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid yellow 235.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 2004

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid yellow 235.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON ACID YELLOW 235.

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

``      9902.32.06      Acid yellow 235     Free         No Change        No Change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS Nos. 73018-                                                   31/2007
                         84-5, 71562-83-9,
                         125408-78-8,
                         125352-02-5, and
                         125352-03-6)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.12.45)......

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1327 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for 

production of refined coal. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2019 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself and Mr. CRAMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the credit for production of refined coal. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REFINED COAL PRODUCTION 

4 TAX CREDIT. 

5 (a) EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH RE6 FINED COAL CAN BE PRODUCED.—Section 45(e)(8) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(E) EXTENSION OF CREDIT PERIOD FOR

10 CERTAIN REFINED COAL FACILITIES.—In the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1327 IS

1 case of a refined coal production facility which 

2 does not produce steel industry fuel and which 

3 is placed in service before January 1, 2012, 

4 clauses (i) and (ii)(II) of subparagraph (A) 

5 shall each be applied by substituting ‘20-year 

6 period’ for ‘10-year period’.’’. 

7 (b) EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH RE8 FINED COAL FACILITIES CAN BE QUALIFIED.—Subpara9 graph (B) of section 45(d)(8) of the Internal Revenue 

10 Code of 1986 is amended— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘placed in service after’’ and in12 serting ‘‘placed in service— 

13 ‘‘(i) after’’; 

14 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert15 ing ‘‘, or’’; and 

16 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

17 clause: 

18 ‘‘(ii) after December 31, 2018, and 

19 before January 1, 2022.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to coal produced and sold after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

23 ending after such date. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 1 of 13 PageID: 8348

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 2 of 13 PageID: 8349

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 3 of 13 PageID: 8350

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 4 of 13 PageID: 8351

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 5 of 13 PageID: 8352

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 6 of 13 PageID: 8353

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 7 of 13 PageID: 8354

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 8 of 13 PageID: 8355

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 9 of 13 PageID: 8356

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 10 of 13 PageID: 8357

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 11 of 13 PageID: 8358

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 12 of 13 PageID: 8359

Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS   Document 1110   Filed 10/27/09   Page 13 of 13 PageID: 8360
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5202

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To clarify the treatment of supplemental appropriations in 

calculating the rate for operations applicable for continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2005.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5202 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF SUPPLE2 MENTAL APPROPRIATIONS IN CALCULATING 

3 RATE FOR OPERATIONS. 

4 For purposes of the application of section 103 of 

5 Public Law 108–309, supplemental appropriations shall 

6 be included in the calculation of the rate for operations 

7 only in accordance with the attachments to Office of Man8 agement and Budget Bulletin No. 04–05 entitled ‘‘Appor9 tionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 

10 2005’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 4, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

46. Employment status of male Vietnam-era veterans and nonveterans by age

(Numbers in thousands)

Veteran status and age

Civilian 

noninstitutional

 population 

Civilian labor force 

1997 1998

Total Employed Unemployed

1997 1998 1997 1998

Number Percent of

labor force

1997 1998 1997 1998

VIETNAM-ERA VETERANS

Total, 40 years and over ....................................... 7,790 7,773 6,644 6,526 6,439 6,348 206 179 3.1 2.7

 40 to 54 years .................................................... 6,284 5,950 5,676 5,313 5,496 5,163 180 150 3.2 2.8

 40 to 44 years ................................................. 1,002 741 901 662 864 637 37 24 4.1 3.7

 45 to 49 years ................................................. 2,683 2,237 2,436 2,011 2,366 1,955 71 56 2.9 2.8

 50 to 54 years ................................................. 2,599 2,972 2,338 2,641 2,266 2,571 72 70 3.1 2.6

 55 years and over .............................................. 1,506 1,822 969 1,213 943 1,184 26 29 2.7 2.4

NONVETERANS

Total, 40 to 54 years ............................................ 19,440 20,304 17,621 18,403 17,044 17,879 577 523 3.3 2.8

 40 to 44 years .................................................... 8,972 9,218 8,285 8,512 8,007 8,269 278 242 3.4 2.8

 45 to 49 years .................................................... 6,212 6,796 5,639 6,190 5,460 6,020 179 170 3.2 2.7

 50 to 54 years .................................................... 4,256 4,290 3,696 3,701 3,576 3,590 120 111 3.2 3.0

 NOTE : Male Vietnam-era veterans are men who served in the Armed

Forces between August 5, 1964 and May 7, 1975. Nonveterans are men who

have never served in the Armed Forces. Beginning in January 1998, data

reflect new composite estimation procedures and revised population controls

used in the household survey.

225
V.

DANIEL M. FURESZ

Hon. Peter 0. Sheridan

ORDER

WHEREAS this matter comes before the Court on Defendant Daniel M. Furesz’s

(“Defendant’s’) application to (I) withdraw his pro se status, (2) have the Office of the Federal

Public Defender re-appointed to represent him, and (3) dismiss Steven E. Savage, Esq. as stand-by

counsel; and

WHEREAS I)efendant has indicated that he has lost confidence and trust in the stand-by

representation of’ Mr. Savage’ and now believes that representation by counsel is more preferable

than acting in a pro se capacity; and

WHEREAS the Court considered the submissions ofthe parties and heard oral argument on

May 24, 2011; and

WHEREAS there is no opposition and good cause has been shown;

IT IS on this 25th day of May 2011, ORI)ERED as follows:

1. Mr. Savage is hereby dismissed as stand-by counsel to Defendant.

2. Defèndant*s motion to withdraw his pro se status and to have counsel appointed is

granted.

The Court is not making any findings regarding Defendant’s allegations about Mr.

Savage’s representation. However, the Court notes that in its view, Mr. Savage was professional

and diligent in handling all issues before the Court.
DEBORAH MOULTON,

STEVEN K. COLE and

DAVID SLEEVAK,

individually and on

behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

*

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:ll-cv-04073-JLL *

LG Electronics, Inc. and *

LG Electronics USA, Inc., *

*

Defendants. *

CONSENT ORDER ENlARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A MOTION AND

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DISMISSAI OF THE

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

With the consent of counsel for the respective parties, it is

hereby ORDERED that the time that Plaintiffs shall file a motion and

supporting memorandum requesting the Court to reconsider the

dismissal of the class action complaint is enlarged to and including

September 13, 2012. The response of LG Electronics, Inc. shall be

filed on or before October 10, 2012.

Entered:

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

LINARES, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL-MAH Document 50 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 487
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1101

___________________________

Cecilio Tamayo Contreras; Eva Yolanda Tamayo

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: November 7, 2013

 Filed: November 8, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

El Salvadoran citizens Cecilio Tamayo Contreras and Eva Yolanda Tamayo

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which

upheld an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of special rule cancellation of removal

under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act. After careful consideration,

we conclude that petitioners’ arguments regarding Contreras’s eligibility for special
rule cancellation of removal are unreviewable. See Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d

1058, 1068-69 (8th Cir. 2010). We further conclude that factual errors mistakenly

included in the IJ’s written decision--which the BIA corrected--do not warrant a

remand. See United States v. Timley, 507 F.3d 1125, 1131 (8th Cir. 2007) (declining

to remand case where it would be futile and waste of judicial resources).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3146 JENNIFER WEST, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in CH0731080297-1-1. Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN,Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Jennifer West requests reconsideration of this court's rejection of her petition for review as untimely. On September 19, 2008, the Board denied West's petition for review and informed West that its decision was final and that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60 calendar days of her receipt of the Board's decision. West concedes that she filed her petition for review more than 60 days after receiving the Board's decision. She indicates that she received the Board's final decision on September 26, 2008. This court received West's petition for review on March 9, 2009. A petition for review must be received by the court within 60 days of receipt of the Board's final order. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). To be timely filed, the petition must bereceived by this court on or before the date that the petition is due. Pinat v. Office of

Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (petition is filed when received by this court; court dismissed petition received nine days late). Because West's petition was not timely received by this court, it must be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: West's motion for reconsideration is denied. Her petition for review is dismissed as untimely filed.

Each side shall bear its own costs. (3) Any other pending motions are moot. FOR THE COURT 

# MAY - 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Jan Horbaly Clerk 

# UStakpri urr" cc: Jennifer West Antonia R. Soares, Esq. MAY -5 2009 s20 Mn Witutti.1 CLERK Date

2009-3146 2
#### Powell *v.*The State.

Simmons, J. — In view of the evidence, there was no substantial error committed by the court, and no error at all in denying a new trial.

October 15, 1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. March term, 1894.

Wrights & Hamilton and W. W. Vandiver, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and W. J. Nunnally, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Satyam Computer Services Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors
and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial
reporting.
  By: /s/ B. Rama RajuManaging Director and ChiefExecutive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2009



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-54532 of Pinnacor Inc. and subsidiaries on
Form S-8 of our report dated January 30, 2003 (which expressed an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standard No. 142), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pinnacor Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP    |  | 
|--------------------------- |  | 
|New York, NY
March 31, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.1

Certification pursuant to Section 1350  of Chapter 63 of Title 18  of the United States Code

I, Kirk Loevner, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Pinnacor Inc. (the "Company"), certify that (i) the Company's 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/KIRK LOEVNERKirk Loevner, CEO & President
Date: March 31, 2003 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Layla M. LINEGAR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Mark LOBANOFF, M.D., and North Suburban Eye Specialists, LLP, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-2635.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 20, 2013.

Filed: March 7, 2013.

Layla M. Linegar, Hallandale, FL, pro se.

*636Melissa Dosick Riethof, Cecilie Morris Loidolt, Jennifer M. Waterworth, Meagher & Geer, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Layla Linegar appeals the district *court’s*
      *1*
      **order dismissing her diversity action asserting state medical tort claims, after Linegar acknowledged that she did not have an expert witness to testify at trial. After careful review, *see Schaffart v. ONEOK, Inc.,*686 F.3d 461, 470 (8th Cir.2012) (grant of judgment as matter of law is reviewed de novo), we conclude that the dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the district court, *see Fabio v. Bellomo,*504 N.W.2d 758, 762 (Minn.1993) (expert-testimony requirement for medical-malpractice claim); *Reinhardt v. Colton,*337 N.W.2d 88, 96 (Minn.1983) (expert-testimony requirement for negligent-nondisclosure claim). The judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.