alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joanna Green SLADEK, Administratrix of the Estate of Howard Green, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1-157.

United States District Court, S. D. Iowa, Davenport Division.

Aug. 3, 1954.

D. C. Nolan and William L. Meardon, Iowa City, Iowa, for plaintiff.

Walter A. Newport, Jr., of Cook, Blair & Balluff, Davenport, Iowa, for defendants.

RILEY, District Judge.

In this cause defendants have served 33 requests for admissions upon the plaintiff to which, with the exception of 1 (f) and 24 she declined to answer. Thereupon, defendants moved that the requests be deemed admitted and, upon resistance, the matter was submitted and considered upon the written statements of counsel.

The suit is for damages in a large amount on account of the death of Howard Green, plaintiff’s decedent, 23 years of age, who was fatally injured as the result of an explosion occurring to an air conditioning unit on or about which deceased was working on Sept. 7, 1950, in a store at Muscatine, Iowa. Information pertaining to various parts of the air conditioning unit in question, their function and operation is being sought by the *105requests above mentioned from plaintiff. She resists mainly because:

> “Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of any of the matters or things stated and referred to therein sufficient to enable her to form a belief as to the truth thereof and she therefore is required to deny the truth of the alleged facts therein asserted.”

Movant however contends, among other things, that

> “A party upon whom a request is served might not know whether such fact is true or not. There is nothing in the rule to require such adverse party to ascertain the truth or falsity of the fact concerning which the request is made; however, knowing that he will have to pay the costs if the truth of the fact is proven at the trial, it is a material inducement to that party to ascertain whether or not the fact is true if, indeed, he does not know.”

And that, plaintiff having made no attempt to answer the requests in the spirit and mandate of Rule 36, 28 U.S.C.A., the compulsion of the rule should be applied and admissions deemed to be had thereof.

Obviously, many of the matters on which defendants insist answers should be made specifically admitting or denying the truth thereof by plaintiff in this instance, are entirely subjective to her in relation to the deceased. Of course, if Howard Green had survived and it was he to whom these requests were directed and his response had been like that of the present plaintiff, the court would unhesitatingly apply the sanctions of Rule 36 as demanded by defendants. But when the matters are not ordinarily within the knowledge of the party to whom the requests are directed, the court is disinclined to yield to defendants’ contentions. Certainly a party should not be required to make an independent investigation of such matters for the opposing side or his adversary. Defendants’ motion must be overruled.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DARLENE MICHELLE STURDEVANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-35329

D.C. Nos. 3:20-cv-01909-JO

3:18-cr-00223-JO-1

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DARLENE MICHELLE STURDEVANT,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-35330

D.C. Nos. 3:20-cv-01910-JO

3:19-cr-00254-JO-1

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

MAR 11 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted March 9, 2022** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and REISS,*** District Judge.

 

Petitioner Darlene Sturdevant appeals the district court’s denial of her

petition for habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255. Reviewing the

district court’s denial de novo, United States v. Chacon-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157,

1158 (9th Cir. 2000), we affirm. 

1. Petitioner, in her plea agreements, appears to have waived her right to

attack her sentence collaterally. But even if she has not waived that right, her

challenge fails. Petitioner’s argument regarding her career offender status is

foreclosed by binding precedent. United States v. Crum, 934 F.3d 963, 964, 967

(9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), holds that a conviction for delivery of

methamphetamine under Oregon Revised Statute section 475.890 qualifies as a

controlled substance offense for sentencing purposes. 

2. Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, therefore, fails as

well. Her lawyer’s failure to raise an argument that was foreclosed by binding case

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the

District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

2
law does not satisfy either prong of the test established by Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). See Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434, 1445

(9th Cir. 1996) (noting that “the failure to take a futile action can never be deficient

performance”).

AFFIRMED

3
EXHIBIT 10.1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of 
the 15th day of May, 1997 (the "First Amendment"), by and between MICHAEL J.
MELLINGER (hereinafter referred to as "Employee") and DATA RESEARCH 
ASSOCIATES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Employer"), in connection 
with that certain Employment Agreement dated April 17, 1997 
(the "Agreement").

WHEREAS, Employee wishes to amend the Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained therein,
the Agreement is amended as follows:

The first sentence of paragraph THIRD, section (j) shall be deleted 
   in its entirety and the following language substituted in lieu thereof:

   "To the extent not otherwise provided by the Employer in 
    subparagraph (f) of this paragraph THIRD, Employee shall, 
    at Employer's sole cost and expense, maintain in full force 
    and effect an insurance policy or policies providing term 
    life insurance coverage on the life of Employee in an aggregate
    amount of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000),
    for the benefit of the beneficiaries named by Employee, or such
    beneficiaries as may be otherwise designated from time to time 
    by Employee."

The Agreement otherwise shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the 
day and year first above written.

EMPLOYEE:


/s/ Michael J. Mellinger 
-----------------------------
Michael J. Mellinger
President and Chief Executive Officer


EMPLOYER:

DATA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

    /s/ Katharine W. Biggs
By:-------------------------
Katharine W. Biggs
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32





GLOBAL
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION


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 on Form 10-Q of Global Entertainment
Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
            The
      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Dated
October 15, 2009








/s/
      Richard KozubackRichard
      KozbuackPresident
      & Chief Executive Officer/s/
      James YeagerJames
      YeagerSenior
      Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Order filed, December 08, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00837-CR

____________

RONNEY EARL WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1476283

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 13, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Arlene Webb, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 
PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41948-41949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2322-000]


Nexus Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Nexus Energy Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR

[[Page 41949]]

part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 18, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0868592838faeaca9aea593b5b0b0afb2b480a6a5b2a3eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdbbb8afbeb29391949398ae888d8d928f89bd9b988f9ed39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18715 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_12_1_15_39" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 8. Compensation methods for attracting new hires by U.S. establishments that hired at least one new employee in July 2022, in percent</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Compensation method</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Total</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Healthcare and social assistance<br />(NAICS 62)</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Child daycare centers<br />(NAICS 6244)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Offered more hours</p>
</th>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Expanded benefits</p>
</th>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>9.7</td>
<td>9.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Offered hiring bonuses</p>
</th>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>34.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Increased starting pay</p>
</th>
<td>32.6</td>
<td>43.4</td>
<td>72.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_12_1_15_39_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="4">
<p>Note: NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
FILED: March 6 , 2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________ No. 2 1

- 4434

___________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,

v.
MARTIN WILLIAM LUTHER HAMILTON , Defendant

– Appell ant

.

___________________ O R D E R

___________________ The court amends its opinion filed March 6 , 2024 , as follows: On page 1 3, line 2 o f the last paragraph, “ Hobb ’ s Act robbery ” is corrected to read

“ Hobbs Act robbery. ”
For the Court

— By Direction /s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk USCA4 Appeal: 21-4434 Doc: 38 Filed: 03/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00434-CV

IN RE PRONTO GENERAL AGENCY, LTD.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 20, 2021

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 4, 2020, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On September 8, 

2020, this court requested the real party in interest file a response. After considering the petition, 

the record, and the response filed by the real party in interest, this court concludes Relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CV01852, styled Red McCombs Ford (Plaintiff) v. Olivia Moreno 

Rodriguez and Eric Rafael Castorena (Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs) v. Pronto General Agency, Ltd. and 

CEM Insurance Company (Defendants and Third-Party Defendants), pending in the County Court at Law No. 10, 

Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David J. Rodriguez presiding.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.2


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
DATATRAK International, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-16061 and 333-26251 and 333-90699) pertaining to the
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. Amended and Restated 1992 Share Incentive
Plan, Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. Amended and Restated 1994 Directors'
Share Option Plan, Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. Amended and Restated
1996 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan, Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc.
Amended and Restated 1996 Key Employees and Consultants Stock Option Plan and
the DATATRAK International, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan of our report dated
April 24, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DATATRAK
International, Inc. and subsidiaries that are included in its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2001.



                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
April 24, 2001
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RE GI NA LD B. DEJ OH NETT E, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. C H A R L E S L E E ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 17576 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 4 8 4 4 - MMC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a xi ne M . C he s ne y , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B e f o r e : W A R D L A W , C L I F T O N , an dN .R . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R egi nal d B . D eJ oh nett e, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s S e p te m b e r3 0 , 2 0 1 0 o r d e rd is m is s in g D e J o h n e tte ’s 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 98 3 com pl ai ntal l egi ng del i berat e i nd i ff er ence t o h i s s er i ou s m edi ca l needs. W e



# FI LED SEP 25 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 17576 2 d is m is s th e ap p e a l f

o rla c ko f

ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e dD e J o h n e tte ’s c o m p la in t w ith le a v e to a m e n d . R ather than fi l i ng an am ended com pl ai ntor ob t ai ni ng a f i nal order of di sm i ss al fr om the di stri ctcourt , D eJ oh nett e f i l ed a not i ce of appeal . W e there fore l ac k ju r is d ic tio n . See W

M X T ec h. , Inc. v. Mi l ler , 10 4 F . 3d 11 33 , 11 35 -37 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b an c ) ( ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l th a t e x p r e s s lyg r an ts le a v e to a m e n dis no tfi nal , and a fi nal j ud gm entm ustbe ob t ai ned b ef ore s uch a cas e bec om es appeal abl e) . T he except i on al l ow i ng a pre m ature not i ce of appealt o b e tre at ed as tim e lyf ile du n d e rF e d . R . A p p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) d o e s n o t ap p ly . Se e Se r i ne v . P e te rs on , 98 9 F . 2d 37 1, 37 2 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( order) (“ Rul e 4(a )( 2) perm i t s ano t i ce of appeal f r om anonf

i na l de c i s i on t o ope r a t e a s anot i c e of appe a l f r om the f i na l j udgm e nt o n lyw h e n ad is tr ic t c o u rt an n o u n c e s ad e c is io n th a t w ou ld b e ap p e a lab le if im m e d ia te lyf

o llo w e db yth e e n tryo f

ju d g m e n t.” ) . B ec au se w e d ism iss f

o r lac ko f ju risd icti o n , w e d o n o t co n sid erD eJ o h n ette’s o u t st an d i n g m o t i o n s. DI S MI S S E D.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18616]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Initial 
Review Group; Mental Health Services Research Committee.
    Date: October 30, 2018.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 
6136, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-443-1225, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdacbeaea5b8a1b9a88da0aca4a1e3a3a4a5e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3d2f3f34293028391c313d353072323534723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants; National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-18616 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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