alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Thomas L. Chamouris, Jr. v. Angela D. Whitley

November 8, 2001

Case No. LF-1192-1

By Judge T. J. Markow

This case was tried to a verdict on claims of legal malpractice by the defendant. A verdict of $62,000 was returned for the plaintiff. Defendant renewed her motion to strike the plaintiff’s evidence and to set aside the verdict on the ground that plaintiff failed to offer expert testimony that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff

Plaintiffs cause of action is based on defendant’s agreement to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a complaint against plaintiffs former employer that had been pending in the U.S. District Court. The claim against the former employer was based on alleged maltreatment and discrimination against the plaintiff on account of his marriage to a person of a different race. Because of defendant’s unauthorized dismissal, plaintiff was precluded from pursuing his claims against the former employer.

At this trial, plaintiff produced evidence of the maltreatment and discriminatory conduct and its effect on him. Defendant argues that plaintiff s malpractice claim fails as he offered no expert testimony that he would have prevailed in the discrimination case and, therefore, he has not proved a *prima facie*case of damages from the malpractice.

Defendant’s motions are overruled. This jury had the same type of evidence that would have been introduced in the discrimination case upon which to decide whether there was discrimination and, if so, what damages were suffered by the plaintiff. Plaintiff correctly argues that there was no need *72for and indeed it would have been inadmissible to offer an expert to opine whether that evidence would have produced a favorable verdict in the discrimination case. Such testimony would, at best, be rank speculation as no witness could predict what a jury would have done.

Should the expert have been offered to opine whether the evidence would have made out a *prima facie*case, that would be a question of law which is solely the province of the court to determine.

What defendant really complains of is that the jury was not folly informed of the elements required to enable the jury to find discrimination. On that she is correct. That information, however, should have come in the form of instructions of law beyond those offered. Defendant did not offer any instructions nor did she object to the lack of instructions on the underlying tort issues. The instructions given, then, are the law of this case. The jury applied them to these facts to arrive at the verdict. That verdict should stand.

It is, therefore, ordered that the plaintiff, Thomas L. Chamouris, Jr., shall have judgment against the defendant, Angela D. Whitley, for $62,000 plus interest from the date of judgment until paid plus the costs.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41207-41208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-27-2017]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 43--Battle Creek, Michigan; 
Authorization of Production Activity, Pfizer, Inc., (Pharmaceutical 
Products), Kalamazoo, Michigan

    On April 12, 2017, Pfizer, Inc., submitted a notification of 
proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within Subzone 43E, in 
Kalamazoo, Michigan.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting

[[Page 41208]]

public comment (82 FR 26433, June 7, 2017). On August 15, 2017, the 
applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further 
review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production 
activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the 
FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 24, 2017.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18439 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### FACTEK, LLC, Appellant, v. Pete GEREN, Secretary of the Army, Appellee.

No. 2008-1095.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2007.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6122
ROBERT M. LANCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (4:04-cv-02247-DCN) Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 31, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert M. Lance, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We limit our review to the issues presentedin the informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert M. Lance appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Lance’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. On appeal, the sole issue raised by Lance is that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his action. * This claim fails because the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to make a recommendation to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordi ngly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

May 22, 2019

p0515 

# Order

Clerk May 22, 2019

158042

In re PETITION OF BERRIEN COUNTY

TREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE.

_________________________________________

BERRIEN COUNTY TREASURER,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 158042

COA: 330795

Berrien CC: 2014

- 000170

- CZ

NEW PRODUCTS CORPORATION,

Respondent

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Vicente Valencia MONDRAGON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73739.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Vicente Valencia Mondragon, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le~ fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vicente Valencia Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have ju*67risdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Valencia’s motion to reopen because he failed to present evidence to support his contention that his son had a new medical condition. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material”).

We do not consider Valencia’s contentions regarding continuous physical presence because the hardship determination is dispositive. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l) (to be eligible for cancellation of removal the applicant must establish continuous physical presence, good moral character and hardship). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Texas Biotechnology Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Bruce D. Given, M.D., President and Chief Executive 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:

      1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ BRUCE D. GIVEN, M.D.
----------------------------------------
Bruce D. Given, M.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Texas Biotechnology Corporation and will be retained by Texas
Biotechnology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.3


                            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 for the period ending
September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned, as Senior Vice President, Finance of the Company, hereby
certifies that:

          (i) the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


Dated as of this 8th day of November 2006.


                                        /s/ Glenn R. Richter
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Glenn R. Richter
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Administrative Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)


A signed original 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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# SUMMARY:

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its June 14, 2017 meeting. The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG.

                        This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at                         *www.bbg.gov.*                         Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public Web site.                    

                        The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed                               ( print page 40746)                            above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at                         *https://bbgboardmeetingaugust2017.eventbrite.com*                         by 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on August 29. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at                         *pubaff@bbg.gov.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,

Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 2017-18310 Filed 8-24-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
10-K 2008 Exhibit 10.33





                                                                                    Exhibit 10.33



FIRST AMENDMENT

                                    TO

                            EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

	The Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") entered into as of March 17, 2008, by and between NPS
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Francois Nader, M.D., is hereby amended as follows:



	Section VII.b.ii is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and by substituting therefor the following:

"ii.Any Gross-Up payment, as determined by this Section VII, shall be paid to the relevant tax authorities as
withholding taxes on behalf of the Executive at such time or times when each Excise Tax payment is due."




	Section VIII.a.ii is hereby amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and by substituting therefor the following:

"ii.`Good Reason' shall mean, without the express written consent of the Executive, the occurrence of any of the
following conditions, provided the Executive provides notice to the Company of the existence of the condition within 90 days of the initial
existence of the condition and the Company fails to remedy the condition within 30 days of receipt of such notice:  (i) a material
relocation in the geographic location at which the Executive must perform his services; (ii) any material reduction in the Executive's
Base Salary, other than a reduction of a proportionally like amount affecting other senior executives of the Company; (iii) a change in
the Executive's reporting responsibilities so that the Executive no longer reports directly to the Board; (iv) a material diminution in the
Executive's authority, duties or responsibilities; or (v) any other action or inaction that constitutes a material breach of this Agreement
by the Company."





	Section VIII.b is hereby amended by deleting the sentence that immediately follows subsection iv thereof and by substituting
therefor the following:








"The Company shall, subject to Section IX.j, pay all amounts due under this Section VIII.b within thirty (30) days following the
Executive's effective date of termination."





	Section VIII.e is hereby amended by deleting the sentence that immediately follows subsection iv thereof and by substituting
therefor the following:

"The Company shall, subject to Section IX.j, pay all amounts due under this Section VIII.e within thirty (30) days following the
Executive's effective date of termination."






	Except as amended herein, the Agreement is confirmed in all other respects.

Executed this 15th day of December, 2008 by the parties hereto.
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

By:/s/ Andrew Rackear  

  Andrew Rackear

   General Counsel


/s/ Francois Nader

   Francois Nader, M.D.
















                                                    2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at 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 lunani 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 GU R A S ING H D HI L L ON , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70079 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 157- 610 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dW A R D L A W , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . G ur aS i ngh D hi l l on, anat i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 

# FI LED

JU L 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70079 2 d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . Ca n o -Me r i da v . I NS , 311 F . 3d 960, 9 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g D h illo n ’s m o tio n to re consi der a s unt i m el y, w here i tw as fi l ed ov ertw o years af t erthe B IA ’ s f

i nal a d m in is tr ativ e d e c is io n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s e x e r c is e o f its s u as p o n te au th o r ity to d e n yD h illo n ’s m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rb a s e do n h is du e p r o c e s s ar g u m e n t. See Eki m i a n v . I

NS , 3 0 3 F .3 d1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

ERIC MELENDEZ, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-2667

LT Case No. 1992-CF-1831-A

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 19, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Seminole County, 

Donna Goerner, Judge.

Andrew B. Greenlee, of Andrew B.

Greenlee, P.A., Sanford, for 

Appellant.

Eric Melendez, Lowell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive,

repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and
2

sentence in Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 1992-CF-1831-A, this 

Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not 

be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 

48 (Fla. 1999). Appellant through counsel has stipulated to being prohibited 

from future filings unless represented by counsel. 

In order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from 

filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Seminole County

Circuit Court Case No. 1992-CF-1831-A. The Clerk of this Court is directed 

not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The 

Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case 

unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. 

State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The 

Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the 

appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 

944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 

5th DCA 2005).

SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and SOUD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 21


                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                ---------------



                                     Jurisdiction of            Percentage Owned
Subsidiaries                         Incorporation               By  Registrant
------------                         -------------               --------------

DCA  Medical  Services, Inc.               Florida                         100%
DCA  of  Central  Valdosta,  LLC           Georgia                          70%
DCA  of  Fitzgerald,  LLC                  Georgia                          70%
DCA  of  Hawkinsville,  LLC                Georgia                         100%
DCA  of  Homerville,  LLC                  Georgia                         100%
DCA  of  So.  Ga.,  LLC                    Georgia                         100%
DCA  of  Royston,  LLC                     Georgia                         100%
DCA  of  Lawrenceburg,  LLC                Indiana                          60%
DCA  of  Chevy  Chase,  LLC                Maryland                         80%
DCA  of  Manahawkin,  Inc.                 New  Jersey                      80%
DCA  of  Vineland,  LLC                    New  Jersey                      51%
DCA of Cincinnati, LLC                     Ohio                             60%
DCA  of Carlisle, Inc.                     Pennsylvania                     80%
DCA  of  Chambersburg, Inc.                Pennsylvania                     80%
DCA  of  Lemoyne,  Inc.                    Pennsylvania                    100%
DCA of Mechanicsburg, LLC                  Pennsylvania                    100%
DCA  of Wellsboro, Inc.                    Pennsylvania                    100%
DCA  of  Warsaw,  LLC                      Virginia                        100%


<PAGE>