alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony OLIVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-1944.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2013.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2013.

Anthony Olive, Dixon, IL, pro se.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Order

Last fall we held that Anthony Olive stated a claim for relief under the eighth amendment by alleging that a physician offered him only ibuprofen to treat his pain, despite knowing that this drug would aggravate his peptic ulcer. We remanded for further proceedings. *Olive v. Wexford Corp.,*494 Fed.Appx. 671 (7th Cir.2012) (nonprecedential disposition).

The current appeal arises from Olive’s experience in a different prison. Here Olive initially was offered a different ibuprofen-containing drug to control his pain; when he rejected it because of its potential side effects, the medical staff diagnosed his knee condition using x-rays and administered physical therapy and steroid injections; they also gave Olive a low-bunk permit. The district judge concluded that this made a material difference and dismissed this second suit.

Olive contends that the physicians should have sent him for an MRI scan to get better information and should have given him a knee brace instead of, or in addition to, the steroid shots. But as we concluded in *Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,*706 F.3d 864 (7th Cir.2013), the Constitution does not require physicians to use MRI scans when they conclude, in the exercise of professional judgment, that x-rays suffice for diagnosis. Olive’s own complaint discloses a serious effort at diagnosis and treatment and shows that the defendants were not indifferent to his condition. If they erred, that is a matter for malpractice litigation under state law, not for a constitutional claim. The judgment dismissing this suit on the pleadings is affirmed.
Chart 3-4. In 2005, about 1 in 25 workers could be described 

as "contingent,” believing that they could not work at their 

job indefinitely

Contingent workers

(4.1 percent)

Noncontingent workers 

(95.9 percent)

February 2005

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 3-4. In 2005, about 1 in 25 workers could be described 

as "contingent,” believing that they could not work at their 

job indefinitely

• Conceptually, contingent workers can be thought of as those workers who 

have no explicit or implicit contract for ongoing employment. Under the 

broadest definition, which includes workers who do not expect their jobs to 

last, they made up approximately 4 percent of workers in February 2005. The 

percentage of workers classified as “contingent” has edged down from about 5 

percent in February 1995 (when the data on contingent work were first 

collected).

• In 2005, slightly more than one-half of contingent workers would have 

preferred a permanent job; about one-third of contingent workers preferred the 

contingent arrangement (the remainder were either undecided or did not 

respond).
Order entered September 10 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00664
- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C .W. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11
- 667 

### O RDE R Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By order dated August 7, 2013, we ordered appellant to file his brief on or before September 6, 2013. Appellant has not filed a brief or otherwise communicated with this Court since we issued our August 7, 20 13 order. We direct appellant to file his brief within ten days of the date of this order. If the brief is not filed within the time specified, the appeal will be dismissed. No further extensions will be granted.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
VELVA L. PRICE, District Clerk, Travis County Courthouse, Third Floor



### RECEIPT AND EXECUTION OF MANDATE FROM

THE COURT OF APPEALS

BY THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT CLERK

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk March 10, 2015 Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Criminal Division P.O. Box 679004, Austin, Texas, 78767

Re: No. 03-14-00144-CR (Trial Court No.D-1-DC-12-301971)

Styled: FRANK HOWARD MCMARION

vs. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 87(b)(1), I hereby forward my acknowledgment of the receipt and the execution of the mandate on MARCH 10, 2015 from the Court of Appeals in the above cause. The official execution of this mandate is recognized by the Travis County Sheriff whereas the capias after mandate, official notice of mandate, or transfer of inmate to proper authorities, has been executed and or is in the process of being executed hereby placing the defendant within the proper jurisdiction of the trial court. Respectfully,

VELVA L. PRICE

District Clerk Travis County, Texas

By: _________________________________ Deputy,JESSICA CONTRERAS

C23 - 000001020COUNTY OF TRAVIS

STATE OF TEXAS

VELVA L. PRICE

District Clerk

March 10, 2015

Records Office

Box 99

Institutional Division Texas Department of Criminal Justice Huntsville, Texas 77340

RE: D-1-DC-12-301971

State Vs. FRANK HOWARD MCMARION

Dear Sirs:

You will find enclosed herewith a certifie d copy of the Mandate from the Court of Appeals which has been received and filed, and affirms the judgment of the trial court in the above referenced cause for which the defendant is incarcerated in your facility.

Respectfully,

VELVA L. PRICE District Clerk, Travis County, Texas

By:_______________________________________

Enclosures

C23 - 000001020
#### Watson *v.*The State.

Atkinson, J. — The only question properly presented for adjudication by this court being -whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and there being sufficient evidence to authorize the conviction, the refusal of a new trial will not be overruled.

November 26,1894.

Indictment for larceny from tbe house. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus. October term, 1894.

Watson was charged with stealing a pair of shoes from the storehouse of Ware. He was seen to enter the store without the shoes, and to emerge therefrom with them unwrapped and under his coat. In his hand he carried a bundle containing five cents worth of calico he had bought. The shoes were not sold to him by Ware. They had on them Ware’s cost-mark. Ware had five clerks who sold shoes. Watson was arrested with one of the shoes under his arm in one pocket, and the other in his inside pocket. He claimed to have bought them from a negro for seventy-five cents. He introduced no evidence at the trial, but made a statement reiterating his claim and denying that he stole the shoes. After verdict of guilty, he moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and for alleged error in admitting testimony that he tried to sell a pair of shoes on the day in question. It does not appear what, if any, objection was made to this testimony.

William C. Munday, Jr., by Morgan McMiohael, for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16613]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 27, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offerbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Jean Hummel, Columbus, Ohio; Robert Hummel, II, and Patricia 
Hummel, both of Leawood, Kansas; Jennifer Ostenson and Eric Ostenson, 
both of Longmont, Colorado; all as members of the Robert Hummel family 
group; to retain control of Bank of Choice Holding Company, Greeley, 
Colorado, and thereby indirectly retain control of Bank of Choice, 
Greeley, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 9, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-16613 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16420]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

[Notice 2009-14]


Web Site and Internet Communications Improvement Initiative; 
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and request for public comments; 
correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 2009, a document concerning the improvement of 
public information disclosure via the Commission's Web site and other 
Internet communications. The Commission inadvertently entered the 
signature date on the document as March 25, 2009. This document removes 
that signature date and inserts the correct date, which is June 25, 
2009.

DATES: Effective Date: This correction is effective on July 14, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 
Counsel, or Ms. Cheryl A.F. Hemsley, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Election Commission published a 
document in the Federal Register on July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31430), which 
inadvertently included an incorrect issuance date. This correction 
removes that date and inserts the correct date of issuance by the 
Commission.
    In Notice 2009-10 published on July 1, 2009 (74 FR 31430), make the 
following correction. On page 31441, in the first column, on the top 
line, replace the date ``March 25, 2009,'' which appears after the word 
``Dated,'' with ``June 25, 2009.''

    On behalf of the Commission.

    Dated: July 7, 2009.
Steven T. Walther,
Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-16420 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 89   Filed 05/21/12   Page 1 of 5 PageID: 488

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 89   Filed 05/21/12   Page 2 of 5 PageID: 489

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 89   Filed 05/21/12   Page 3 of 5 PageID: 490

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 89   Filed 05/21/12   Page 4 of 5 PageID: 491

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA   Document 89   Filed 05/21/12   Page 5 of 5 PageID: 492
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS CRUZ-GARCIA, OBEL CAUSE NUMBER WR-85,051-02 V. THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### ORDER The above styled and numbered cause is before this Court on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Art. 11.071 stemming from Applicant’s Capital Murder conviction in Cause No. 1384794-A from the 337th District Court of Harris County. Exhibits Nos. 1 - 36 are ordered returned to the District Clerk of Harris county. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

PER CURIAM EN BANC DO NOT PUBLISH
#### The Aldine Manufacturing Company *v.*Warner *et al.*

Atkinson, J. — The case involving questions both of law and fact, and the trial court having granted a first new trial, without basing its judgment on any special ground, this court will not closely scrutinize the record for the purpose of determining whether or not the judgment of the court below in granting a new trial was erroneous, but will adhere to the general rule applicable in such cases.

November 12,1894.

Action on note. Before Judge Westmoreland. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1894.

L. P. Skeen, for plaintiff Culberson & Hunt, C. B. Reynolds and King & Anderson, for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of RICHARD JAMES, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 29, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, at the time of the accident in question, defendant did not provide coverage for the vehicle that was involved in the accident. In support of its motion, defendant submitted affidavits by its claim litigation representative and products specialist, which affidavits established that the vehicle which had been driven by plaintiff's assignor at the time of the accident on January 18, 2011 was not covered by the insurance policy at issue. Consequently, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that "the alleged injur[ies] do[] not arise out of an insured incident" (<i>Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos.</i>, 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]) and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (<i>see Zuckerman v City of New York</i>, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). </p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed. </p><p>Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: August 18, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council 
(NAC) will meet on August 5, 2009 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. via 
teleconference.
    The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
grant applications reviewed by Initial Review Groups. Therefore, the 
meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the 
Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (6) 
and 5 U.S.C. App.2, Section 10(d).
    Substantive program information, a summary of the meeting and a 
roster of Council members may be obtained as soon as possible after the 
meeting, either by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site at http://www.samhsa.gov/council/csap/csapnac.aspx, or by contacting the CSAP 
National Advisory Council's Acting Designated Federal Official, Ms. 
Joyce Weddington (see contact information below).

    Committee Name: SAMHSA Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 
National Advisory Council.
    Date/Time/Type: August 5, 2009, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.: Closed.
    Place: SAMHSA Building, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Conference Room 4-
1058, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
    Contact: Joyce Weddington, Acting Designated Federal Official, 
SAMHSA CSAP National Advisory Council, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 4-
1065, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (240) 276-2448, Fax: 
(240)276-2430, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb919482989ed58c9e9f9f92959c8f9495bb889a9693889ad5939388d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="214b4e5842440f56444545484f46554e4f6152404c4952400f4949520f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 10, 2009.
Toian Vaughn,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-17143 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P


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



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
  1.
    
    the report on Form 10-Q of Viad Corp for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Viad Corp.
 Date: May 9, 2008
    By
    /s/ Paul B. DykstraPaul B. DykstraChief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 30, 2014

h1215 

# Order

Clerk December 30, 2014

147030(56)(57)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147030

COA: 306212

Oakland CC: 2008

- 221114

- FC

ELLIOT LEOTIS PILTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for permission to file a pro se supplemental brief

is GRANTED. The motion for reconside ration of this Court’s September 29, 2014 order

is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered

erroneously.
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 Grace 2, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas Dyer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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 Company.





Date: July 14, 2011

By: /s/ DOUGLAS DYERName: Douglas Dyer

Title: President and Director

(Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer

and Principal Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 577 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 577

  To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to increase the 
     Government contribution for Federal employee health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

 Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Ms. Norton, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. 
McHugh, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Holt, Mr. Costello, Mr. 
Lantos, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Filner, Mr. Olver, Mr. Hinchey, 
 Mr. Israel, Mr. Holden, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Price 
  of North Carolina, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Frost, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. 
 Kanjorski, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Kildee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to increase the 
     Government contribution for Federal employee health insurance.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE 
              HEALTH INSURANCE.

    (a) Increase in the Maximum Contribution Payable by the Government 
(Expressed as a Percentage of Governmentwide Weighted Averages).--
Section 8906(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``72'' and inserting ``80''.
    (b) Increase in the Maximum Percentage of an Enrollee's Actual 
Subscription Charges Payable by the Government.--Section 8906(b)(2) of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``75'' and 
inserting ``83''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on the first day of 
the first contract year beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:09-cv-02440-PGS-DEA Document 6 Filed 01/26/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 149