alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER, Argus Genetics, LLC, and Mars, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BIOPET VET LAB, INC. and Radio Systems Corporation (doing business as Petsafe), Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2011-1249.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 15, 2011.

Christopher A. Abel, Troutman Sanders LLP, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees.

Gregory N. Stillman, Brent L. Vannor-man, Hunton & Williams LLP, Norfolk, VA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

BioPet Vet Lab, Inc. et al. (BioPet) move for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center et al. (FHCRC) oppose. BioPet replies.

*997In deciding whether to grant a stay or injunction, pending appeal, this court “assesses the movant’s chances of success on the merits and weighs the equities as they affect the parties and the public.” *E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,*835 F.2d 277, 278 (Fed.Cir. 1987); *see also Standard Havens Prods, v. Gencor Indus.,*897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir. 1990). To prevail, a movant must establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits or, failing that, must demonstrate that it has a substantial case on the merits and that the harms factors militate in its favor. *Hilton v. Braunskill,*481 U.S. 770, 778, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).

Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a merits panel, we conclude based upon the papers submitted that BioPet has not met its burden of showing the requisite likelihood of success to obtain a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion for a stay, pending appeal, of the preliminary injunction is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2676

CHARLES E. TERRY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FAIRFAX OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-324-A) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles E. Terry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christine Hope Perdue, Elizabeth Childers Smith, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles E. Terry, Jr., appeals the district court’s ordergranting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in his employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Terry v. Fairfax Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. , No. CA-97-324-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2976 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage, 

as supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated needles, syringes, 

and other sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar program under part 

D of the Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2009 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage, as supplies associated with the injection 

of insulin, of containment, removal, decontamination and 

disposal of home-generated needles, syringes, and other 

sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar 

program under part D of the Medicare Program. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2976 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Safe Needle 

3 Disposal Coverage Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CONTAINMENT, REMOVAL, DECON5 TAMINATION AND DISPOSAL OF HOME-GEN6 ERATED NEEDLES, SYRINGES, AND OTHER 

7 SHARPS THROUGH A SHARPS CONTAINER, 

8 DECONTAMINATION/DESTRUCTION DEVICE, 

9 OR SHARPS-BY-MAIL PROGRAM OR SIMILAR 

10 PROGRAM UNDER MEDICARE PART D. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–2(e)(1)(B) of the 

12 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–102(e)(1)(B)) is 

13 amended by inserting after ‘‘regulations of the Secretary’’ 

14 the following: ‘‘and including devices approved for home 

15 use by the Food and Drug Administration for the safe 

16 and effective containment, removal, decontamination and 

17 disposal of home-generated needles, syringes, and other 

18 sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/de19 struction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar pro20 gram’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### Jed Leshowitz, Respondent, v Mary E. Conklin, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 593]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for the return of *344a gift made in contemplation of marriage, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered October 23, 1996, which, upon a decision of the same court dated September 4, 1996, granting the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $17,095.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff demonstrated that he gave an engagement ring to the defendant in contemplation of their marriage. Thus, the Supreme Court was correct in awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the engagement ring or its value after the termination of their engagement (see, Civil Rights Law § 80-b; *Gaden v Gaden,*29 NY2d 80). The defendant’s bald, conclusory allegation that she does not know the whereabouts of the ring is insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see, *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557; *Freedman v Chemical Constr. Corp.,*43 NY2d 260, 264; *Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp.,*26 NY2d 255, 259). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, *JJ.,*concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEP 16, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-15108 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:98-cr-00314-PAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH JONES, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(September 16, 2011)

Before BARKETT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jan Smith, appointed counsel for Keith Jones, in this direct criminal appeal,
has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Jones’s revised sentence is affirmed. 

Nevertheless, we vacate and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the

district court to correct a clerical error by docketing Jones’s notice of appeal,

which designated both the amended criminal judgment in the present case and the

final order in a parallel civil action filed under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241

 (Case No. 1:09-cv-20685-PAS), in the aforementioned civil case as well.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 

2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

DACOBY RESHARD WOOTEN , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3457

[ July 1, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cheryl A. Caracuzzo , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- CF

011635

- AXXX

- WB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez,
Ass istant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., C IKLI N and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adewale Johnson ALADEKOBA, a/k/a Jay Johnson, a/k/a Orlando Percival McGregory, a/k/a Wally, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7523.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Adewale Johnson Aladekoba, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie Michelle Bennett, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adewale Johnson Aladekoba seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying *300his criminal motions and petition for writ of error audita querela in which he sought to challenge his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Aladekoba,*No. 1:93-cr-00018WMN-3 (D. Md. June 1, 2010) & 2010 WL 4054267 (Oct. 15, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 

English Translation 

Guarantee Letter 

Hailiang Finance Co., Ltd. (“Hailiang Finance”), a finance company of enterprise group incorporated with the approval by the China
Banking Regulatory Commission and registered with the State Administration for Industry & Commerce of the People’s Republic of China under the Business License for Enterprise Legal Person numbered 330681000148272, is entitled to provide
financial services for the members of Hailiang Group1. Hailiang Group Co., Ltd. guarantees that Zhuji Hailiang Foreign Language School, Zhuji Private High School and Zhejiang Zhuji Tianma
Experimental School (the “Three Schools”) will be able to recover their deposits at Hailiang Finance and any interest accrued thereupon in accordance with the deposit contracts. In the event that the Three Schools fail to recover all such
deposits and accrued interest, I shall assume irrevocable joint and several responsibilities for the repayment thereof. 
 This Guarantee
Letter shall constitute a legally binding document on myself. In case of any breach of this Guarantee Letter, I am willing to assume any legal liabilities as a result thereof. 

Guarantor: Hailiang Feng 
 /s/
Hailiang Feng 
 29 September 2014 

 

	1 	Hailiang Group Member Entities shall refer to the enterprises, public institutions or social associations duly registered in the People’s Republic of China, connecting with one another by capital, and operating
with the parent company as the main body and pursuant to Hailiang Group’s Articles of Association as the common codes of conduct, which include the parent company and its subsidiaries with no less than 51% of controlled shares; the companies
whose no less than 20% of shares are individually or jointly held by the parent company and any of the subsidiaries, or whose less than 20% of shares are individually or jointly held by the parent company and any of the subsidiaries as the largest
shareholder; and the public institutions or social associations affiliated to the parent company and/or any of the subsidiaries. During the actual process of execution, Hailiang Group Member Entities also include the branches, subsidiaries and
affiliated public institutions or social associations controlled by the actual controller, Hailiang Feng, whose status is the same as a parent company. Zhuji Hailiang Foreign Language School, Zhuji Private High School and Zhejiang Zhuji Tianma
Experimental School are Hailiang Group Member Entities.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wesley Trent SNIPES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10114.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, PA, Robert Gerald Bernhoft, The Law Office of Robert G. Bernhoft, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Snipes.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for U.S.

Before ANDERSON, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Now pending before the Court is Appel-lee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction as an impermissible interlocutory appeal and Appellant’s motion to stay the trial below pending resolution of this appeal.

In arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, Appellee acknowledges that there is no controlling precedent from this Circuit finding that an immediate appeal will not lie from an order pertaining to venue in a criminal case. However, Appellee points to cases from four other circuits in which those courts have concluded that such an order is not immediately appealable. *See*
      *1302
      *United States v. Blackwell,*900 F.2d 742, 746-47 (4th Cir.1990); *United States v. French,*787 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1986); *United States v. Martin,*620 F.2d 237, 238 (10th Cir.1980); *United States v. Garber,*413 F.2d 284, 285 (2d Cir.1969).

In response to Appellee’s motion to dismiss, Appellant maintains that his appeal presents a colorable jurisdictional claim and thus, that it meets the requirements for jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Appellant also argues that this appeal meets the requirements of the collateral order doctrine inasmuch as it will conclusively determine the disputed question, will resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action and will be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. *See Will v. Hallock,*546 U.S. 345, 126 S.Ct. 952, 957, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006).

We conclude that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. We conclude that an order pertaining to venue is effectively reviewable after entry of judgment. *See e.g., United States v. Campa,*459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir.2006).1

Accordingly, we GRANT Appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We DENY AS MOOT Appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal and also DENY Appellant’s invitation to retain jurisdiction and to stay the pending trial below in order to allow Appellant to file a petition for writ of mandamus.

. The claims in this case are unlike cases involving the right not to be subjected to double jeopardy and similar rights which would be lost by going to trial. In this case, Appellant’s claim can be adequately reviewed and any rights vindicated on direct appeal.
[Nos. 66658-4-I; 66674-6-I.

Division One.

October 22, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Pedro Martinez et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 10-1-03559-8, Ronald Kessler, J., entered February 4, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Lau, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Ellington, J. Pro Tern.
Section 1350 Certifications

                                   Exhibit 32

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of IPIX  Corporation  and its
wholly-owned  subsidiaries  (collectively,  the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period  ending  March  31,  2005 as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, Clara M. Conti and Charles A.
Crew, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,  respectively, of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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; 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/  Clara M. Conti
---------------------------
Clara M. Conti
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2005



/s/  Charles A. Crew
---------------------------
Charles A. Crew
Chief Financial Officer
May 10, 2005




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.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jo Ellen Barnett, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[862 NYS2d 126]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 26, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The record establishes that claimant quit her job four days after returning from disability leave because she was unhappy that certain coworkers were allegedly staring at her and rolling their eyes. However, the inability to get along with difficult coworkers does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment *(see Matter of Ayad [Alia-Royal Jordanian Airline Corp.—Commissioner of Labor],*41 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2007]; *Matter of Yastrzemski [Commissioner of Labor],*32 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2006], *lv dismissed*8 NY3d 896 [2007]). Further, although claimant testified that her complaints to the employer about her coworkers were not acted upon, the record reveals that the employer did, in fact, reprimand those employees. Moreover, the employer’s legal counsel was called to investigate claimant’s additional allegations of sexual harassment, but claimant refused to speak to the attorney and quit before' the investigation was completed. Thus, claimant denied the employer an opportunity to fully address her complaints *(see Matter of Stewart [Commissioner of Labor],*48 AD3d 873, 874 [2008]; *(Matter of Parker [Commissioner of Labor],*19 AD3d 903, 904 [2005]; *(Matter of Conners [Commissioner of Labor],*9 AD3d 703, 705 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 609 [2004], *cert denied*544 US 1034 [2005]).

Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her claim that she was denied a fair hearing, have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P, Carpinello, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add the Global Plus 1E product to the Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice:*                         October 18, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kyle Coppin, 202-268-2368.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on October 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of The United States Postal Service to add Global Plus 1E to the Competitive Products List. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-7 and CP2018-12.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-22625 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1425

_____________________________
Z ACHARY T AYLOR W OOD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County

. Christopher N. Patterson , Judge

. January 30, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fl a. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Alberto PEREZ-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10054.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Dominic Lanza, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Adrian Paulino Fontes, Counsel, The Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Jorge Alberto Perez-Luna, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Alberto Perez-Luna appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month *734sentence for reentry of removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Perez-Luna’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief have been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

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