alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3206 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 

appointments to advisory committees and conflicts of interest. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 14, 2011 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. GINGREY of 

Georgia, Mr. PAULSEN, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. SHIMKUS, 

and Mr. LATTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to appointments to advisory committees and conflicts of interest. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cultivating Scientific 

5 Expertise to Foster Innovation for Patients Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. 

7 (a) EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS TO

8 ADVISORY COMMITTEES.—Paragraph (2) of section 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3206 IH

1 712(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

2 U.S.C. 379d–1(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(2) EVALUATION AND CRITERIA.— 

4 ‘‘(A) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this 

5 paragraph are— 

6 ‘‘(i) to ensure that the Secretary has 

7 access to the most current expert advice; 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(ii) to promote scientific exchange 

10 and the use of sound science to guide Food 

11 and Drug Administration evaluations and 

12 decisionmaking. 

13 ‘‘(B) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall 

14 ensure that individual appointments to advisory 

15 committees are made to promote scientific and 

16 technical expertise while at the same time mini17 mizing any potential conflicts of interest. 

18 ‘‘(C) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making each 

19 such appointment, the Secretary shall consider, 

20 with respect to any financial interest consti21 tuting a potential conflict of interest— 

22 ‘‘(i) the type of the financial interest; 

23 ‘‘(ii) the nature of the financial inter24 est; and 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3206 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) the magnitude, expressed as a 

2 range, of the financial interest. 

3 ‘‘(D) NO ONE FACTOR DISPOSITIVE.—No 

4 one factor specified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of 

5 subparagraph (C) shall be dispositive in the 

6 Secretary’s evaluation of a particular financial 

7 interest.’’. 

8 (b) ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON CERTAIN WAIV9 ERS AND EXCEPTIONS.—Section 712(c)(2) of the Federal 

10 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379d–1(c)(2)) 

11 is amended by striking subparagraph (C). 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Cecil Melvin GRAY, Plaintiff, *v*. SOUTH ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP LINE, Inc., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant. Cecil Melvin GRAY, Libellant, v. SOUTH ATLANTIC STEAMSHIP LINE, Inc., a corporation of the State of Delaware, Respondent.

Civ. A. Nos. 1579, 1715.

United States District Court D. Delaware.

Jan. 23, 1958.

*579Henry A. Wise, Jr. (of Wise & Suddard), Wilmington, Del., for plaintifflibellant.

Joseph H. Geoghegan (of Berl Potter & Anderson), Wilmington, Del., for defendant-respondent.

LAYTON, District Judge.

Insofar as concerns Civil Action No. 1579, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 41(b), 28 U.S.C. provides in part:

> .’“(b) *Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof.*For the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute * * * a defendant may move for the dismissal of an action or of any claim against him * * * ”

In my judgment, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action for a period of three years under the circumstances above recited constitutes valid grounds for dismissal of the action. Salmon v. City of Stuart, 5 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 1004; Russell v. Cunningham, 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 806.

■ As to the libel (In Admiralty No. 1715), Admiralty Rule 38, 28 U.S.C.A., provides:

> *“Rule 38 Dismissal for failure: to prosecute*

> “If, in any admiralty suit, the libellant shall not appear and prosecute his suit, and comply with the orders of the court, he shall be deemed in default and contumacy; and the court may, on the application of the respondent or claimant, pronounce the suit to be deserted,, and the same may be dismissed with costs.”

This action is also dismissed upon the authority of Lynn v. American Barge Line Company, 3 Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 934.

An Order will be entered in accordance herewith;
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,858
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (986)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,345
<PP&E>                                          22,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                (16,146)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,634
<BONDS>                                         40,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,567
<SALES>                                         64,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,824
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (45)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                       591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                498
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       498
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ROBERT DANNELS,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

DA 19-0343

ORDER

FILED

MAR 0 4 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Cowl

State of Montana

Counsel for the parties in the captioned matter have filed a Joint Motion to

Reschedule Oral Argument, which is set for March 25, 2020.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to reschedule the oral argument is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument will be heard on Wednesday,

June 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Mazurek

Justice Building, Helena, Montana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M. R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument

times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for the Petitioner and thirty (30)

minutes for the Respondent.

Counsel should be mindful of the provisions of M. R. App. P. 17(6).

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the

Honorable Katherine M. Bidegaray, District Judge.

DATED this / 1.'day of March, 2020.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

03/04/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0343
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-42634) pertaining to the Employee Nonqualified Stock Option
Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-32961) pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated
Employee Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-72614) pertaining to the Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-99164) pertaining to the SIG Holdings,
Inc. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-96293) pertaining to the
Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan, (Form S-3 No. 33-77028) and
(Form S-3 No. 333-86666) pertaining to the shelf registration of securities of
Delphi Financial Group, Inc., and (Form S-3 No. 333-118052) pertaining to the
registration of Class A Common Stock of Delphi Financial Group, Inc. of our
reports dated February 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of Delphi Financial Group, Inc., Delphi Financial
Group, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Delphi Financial Group, Inc., included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 15, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2916 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2916

 To enforce the tenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
 United States as it relates to the autonomous sovereign police powers 
                             of the States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2011

   Mr. Culberson (for himself and Mr. Bishop of Utah) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To enforce the tenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
 United States as it relates to the autonomous sovereign police powers 
                             of the States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tenth Amendment Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF STATE POLICE POWERS.

    (a) Reaffirmation of State Police Powers.--Except as limited by the 
minimum due process and equal protection requirements imposed on the 
States by the 14th article of amendment to the United States 
Constitution and by requirements imposed on State or local governments 
as a condition of receiving Federal funds, the Congress reaffirms each 
State's autonomous sovereign police powers under the 10th article of 
amendment to the Constitution to preserve and protect the safety, 
security, and property of the citizens of the State without 
interference or oversight from Federal authorities.
    (b) Civil Action by Governor or Member of the State Legislature.--
            (1) In addition to any other remedy which may exist, in 
        order to protect the State's sovereign authority to determine 
        for itself the appropriate means to preserve and protect the 
        safety, security, and property of the citizens of the State, 
        the chief executive or a member of the legislature of a State 
        may, in a civil action in that chief executive's or member's 
        official capacity, obtain declaratory or injunctive relief--
                    (A) to remedy any action taken by a Federal 
                authority that attempts to interfere with the State's 
                sovereign authority; or
                    (B) to obtain compliance with section 4 of article 
                IV of the Constitution of the United States.
            (2) The plaintiff commencing a civil action under this 
        subsection is immune from civil liability resulting from the 
        plaintiff's participation in that civil action, including 
        liability for any attorney fees, costs, and sanctions that may 
        be awarded in connection with the civil action.
                                 <all>
```
ORIGIMAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0233 

JOHN C. MILLER, 

Petitioner and Appellee, 

v. 

ERIN O. MILLER, 

Respondent and Appellant, 

v. 

CHRISTIAN F. MILLER, 

Intervenor and Appellee. 

FILED 

JAN 19 2022 

Bowen 

Clerk Greenwood 

State 

of Supreme Court of Montana 

ORDER 

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellee's response brief 

filed on January 14, 2022, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with 

the below-referenced Rules and rnust be resubmitted. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(d) requires that the statement of the facts contained in the 

brief reference the pages or parts of the record at which material facts appear. Appellee's 

statement of the facts contains no citations to the record. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(e) requires a statement of the standard of review for each 

issue presented, together with a citation of authority. 

Additionally, M.R. App. P. 12(1)(g) requires that the brief contain citations to the 

authorities, statutes, and pages of the record relied on in the argument. Appellee's brief 

fails to provide citations to legal authority, or to the record for any of the facts referenced 

throughout the argument section. 

01/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0233
Although we liberally construe pro se pleadings and hold them to a less stringent 

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, without citations to legal authority or 

references to the record Appellee's response brief does not comply with the minimal 

requirements for filing. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the 

Appellee shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing 

the revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rules and that the Appellee shall 

serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained 

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. 

The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the 

Appellee and to all parties of record. 

DATED this 1 8th day of January, 2022. 

For the Court,
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133282 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

WALTER HARRIS, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 133282 

 COA: 263172 
 Wayne CC: 03-337670-NZ

JERRY A. OLIVER, SR., MAYOR OF 

DETROIT, and CITY OF DETROIT, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2006 

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. 

s0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 30, 2007 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC.**

 

**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 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter F. McAree, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:

 

(1)                          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

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

 

 
|                     | /s/   PETER F. MCAREE                               |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Peter   F. McAree                                   |
|                     | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                     | (Principal   Financial Officer)                     |
|                     |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Date:   May 6, 2011 |                                                |

 

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3138 

To amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to specify 

a cost sharing requirement and to provide for a report to Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 6, 2011 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. PIERLUISI, 

Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. CARNAHAN, Mr. 

LEVIN, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. LATOURETTE, Ms. MOORE, Mr. FILNER, Mr. NADLER, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. WELCH, 

and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to specify a cost sharing requirement and 

to provide for a report to Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Innovation 

5 in Manufacturing Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3138 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNER2 SHIP PROGRAM COST SHARING. 

3 Section 25(c) of the National Institute of Standards 

4 and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(9) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (3), and 

7 (5), for fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2013, 

8 the Secretary may not provide to a Center more 

9 than 50 percent of the costs incurred by such Center 

10 and may not require that a Center’s cost share ex11 ceed 50 percent. 

12 ‘‘(10) Not later than 1 year after the date of 

13 enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 

14 submit to Congress a report on the cost share re15 quirements under the program. The report shall— 

16 ‘‘(A) discuss various cost share structures, 

17 including the cost share structure in place prior 

18 to such date of enactment and the cost share 

19 structure in place under paragraph (9), and the 

20 effect of such cost share structures on indi21 vidual Centers and the overall program; and 

22 ‘‘(B) include a recommendation for how 

23 best to structure the cost share requirement 

24 after fiscal year 2013 to provide for the long25 term sustainability of the program.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of October 31, 1998 and January 31, 1998, the
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Nine Months ended October 31, 1998
and 1997, and the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Nine Months
ended October 31, 1998 and 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-31-1998 
<CASH>                                         12,346       
<SECURITIES>                                        0                
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,198       
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (731)       
<INVENTORY>                                         0       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,352        
<PP&E>                                          3,685       
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (806)       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,337       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,779       
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          136       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0       
<PREFERRED>                                         0       
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,278       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,337       
<SALES>                                             0        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,776       
<CGS>                                               0                
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,004        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               29,099       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                443        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                13,121       
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,385)   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,506)       
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0       
<CHANGES>                                           0        
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,506)       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.21)       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.21)        
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23    Independent
Auditors' Consent   The Board of Directors
Gardenburger, Inc.:   We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the registration statement (Nos. 33-64622, 33-64624, 33-76764, 333-79451,
333-79455, 333-61858 and 333-92665) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-56775 and
333-79653) on Form S-3 of Gardenburger, Inc. of our report dated November 8,
2002, with respect to the balance sheet of Gardenburger, Inc. as of September
30, 2002, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and
cash flows for the year ended September 30, 2002, and all related financial
statement schedules, which report appears in the September 30, 2002 annual
report on Form 10-K of Gardenburger, Inc.   /s/ KPMG LLP
Portland, Oregon
December 16, 2002
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0613

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK MORRIS and TROY NELSON,

Defendants and Appellants.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including December 1, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

October 22 2020

10/22/2020