alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3430.21 Confidentiality of applications and awards. ( a ) *General.* Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as application contents and evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permissible by law.
( b ) *Identifying confidential and proprietary information in an application.* If an application contains proprietary information that constitutes a trade secret, proprietary commercial or financial information, confidential personal information, or data affecting the national security, it will be treated in confidence to the extent permitted by law, provided that the information is clearly marked by the proposer with the term “confidential and proprietary information” and that the following statement is included at the bottom of the project narrative or any other attachment included in the application that contains such information: “The following pages (specify) contain proprietary information which (name of proposing organization) requests not to be released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of evaluation.”
( c ) *Disposition of applications.* By law, the Department is required to make the final decisions as to whether the information is required to be kept in confidence. Information contained in unsuccessful applications will remain the property of the proposer. However, the Department will retain for three years one file copy of each application received; extra copies will be destroyed. Public release of information from any application submitted will be subject to existing legal requirements. Any application that is funded will be considered an integral part of the award and normally will be made available to the public upon request, except for designated proprietary information that is determined by the Department to be proprietary information.
( d ) *Submission of proprietary information.* The inclusion of proprietary information is discouraged unless it is necessary for the proper evaluation of the application. If proprietary information is to be included, it should be limited, set apart from other text on a separate page, and keyed to the text by numbers. It should be confined to a few critical technical items that, if disclosed, could jeopardize the obtaining of foreign or domestic patents. Trade secrets, salaries, or other information that could jeopardize commercial competitiveness should be similarly keyed and presented on a separate page. Applications or reports that attempt to restrict dissemination of large amounts of information may be found unacceptable by the Department and constitute grounds for return of the application without further consideration. Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, the Department will limit dissemination of such information to its employees and, where necessary for the evaluation of the application, to outside reviewers on a confidential basis. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
[Cite as State v. Holland, 2011-Ohio-6042.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

BRIAN E. HOLLAND : Case No. 11-CA-47 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 10-CR-628 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 18, 2011 

 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

BRIAN WALTZ WILLIAM T. CRAMER 

20 South Second Street 470 Olde Worthington Road 

4th Floor Suite 200 

Newark, OH 43055 Westerville, OH 43082 

 
Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-47 2 

Farmer, J. 

{¶1} On November 12, 2010, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted appellant, 

Brian Holland, on one count of illegally manufacturing drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.04 

and one count of illegally assembling or possessing chemicals for the manufacture of 

drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041. A jury trial commenced on March 22, 2011. The 

jury found appellant guilty. By judgment entry filed March 23, 2011, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to seven years in prison, and included a provision that appellant 

was not to be considered or released on transitional control. 

{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for 

consideration. Assignment of error is as follows: 

I 

{¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INCLUDING IN THE SENTENCING 

ENTRY A PROVISION THAT APPELLANT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OR 

RELEASED ON TRANSITIONAL CONTROL." 

I 

{¶4} Appellant claims the trial court erred by including in the sentencing entry a 

provision that he is not to be considered or released on transitional control. We agree. 

{¶5} Based upon this court's well reasoned opinion in State v. Spears, Licking 

App. No. 10-CA-95, 2011-Ohio-1538, ¶34-38, this assignment of error is granted. 

 
Licking County, Case No. 11-CA-47 3 

{¶6} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is 

hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the 

transitional control language. 

By Farmer, J. 

Hoffman, P.J. and 

Delaney, J. concur. 

 

 

 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ 

 

 s/ William B. Hoffman___________ 

 s/ Patricia A. Delaney_______________ 

 JUDGES 

SGF/sg 1026
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

BRIAN E. HOLLAND : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : CASE NO. 11-CA-47 

For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio is reversed, and the 

matter is remanded to said court for resentencing without the transitional control 

language. Costs to appellee. 

 s/ Sheila G. Farmer_____________ 

 

 s/ William B. Hoffman___________ 
 s/ Patricia A. Delaney_______________ 

 JUDGES
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated balance sheet of Transnational  Industries,  Inc. as of January 31,
1999 and the related consolidated  statement of operations and statement of cash
flows for the year then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000796228
<NAME>                        SPITZ, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         455
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1712
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3533
<PP&E>                                         2784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3075
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    73
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     2657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6636
<SALES>                                        7509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7509
<CGS>                                          5195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            109
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.20
        

</TABLE>
#### § 28.120 Expenses to be borne by party requesting classification.

For any samples submitted for Form A, Form C, or Form D determinations, the expenses of inspecting and sampling, or supervising the sampling, and the preparation of the samples and delivery of such samples to the classification room or other place specifically designated for the purpose by the Director shall be borne by the party requesting classification.

[56 FR 24673, May 31, 1991]
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos, Inc. and will be retained by
Innophos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly
disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: August 3, 2010



/S/ RANDOLPH
GRESSRandolph Gress
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed
as a part of the Report.
#### § 29.3019 Dirty.

The state of tobacco containing an abnormal amount of dirt or sand, or tobacco to which additional quantities of dirt or sand have been added. (See Rule 23.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
REGION
IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 On November
18, 2011, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions
tothe California State Implementation Plan. We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, Appendix
V. APCD/AQMD
Rule# RuleTitle Placer CountyAPCD
502 NewSource Review San Joaquin Valley 4566 OrganicMaterial Composting Operations APCD San Joaquin Valley 4694 Wine Fermentation and StorageTanks APCD SouthCoast AQMD 1133.1 Chipping and Grinding Activities SouthCoast AQMD 1133.3 Emission Reductions from Greenwaste Composting Operations This addresses all revisions
in this submittal.
In the coming months wewill review the complete revisions for action pursuant
to Clean Air Act section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed
to Cynthia G. Allen at (415) 947-4120. cc:Mr.Tom Christofk, APCO Placer County APCD Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Sincerely, UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4 Mr.Robert D.Fletcher Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812 Dear Mr. Fletcher: December 22,2011 Air Division
Pnnted‘iiI?e(’,nled1’ai’r
#### § 29.2562 Type.

A division of a class of tobacco having certain common characteristics and closely related grades. Tobacco which has the same characteristics and corresponding qualities, colors, and lengths is classified as one type, regardless of any factors of historical or geographical nature which cannot be determined by an examination of the tobacco.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
Case 4:03-cv-00186-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/16/03 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:03-cv-00186-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/16/03 Page 2 of 6
Case 4:03-cv-00186-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/16/03 Page 3 of 6
Case 4:03-cv-00186-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/16/03 Page 4 of 6
Case 4:03-cv-00186-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/16/03 Page 5 of 6
Case 4:03-cv-00186-SPM Document 1 Filed 06/16/03 Page 6 of 6
#### Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Fidler.

[Cite as *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 396.]

(No. 97-2641

Submitted May 13, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*397
      *W. Breck Weigel, Thomas S. Shore*and *Maria C. Palermo,*for relator.

*H. Fred Hoefle,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings of fact of the board. We conclude that respondent’s convictions for shoplifting were, as respondent stipulated, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6). We further conclude that respondent’s failure to report his 1985 conviction when specifically questioned violated DR 1-103(A).

Recently, when an attorney withheld the truth during a disciplinary investigation, we imposed a definite suspension. *Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Derivan*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 300, 691 N.E.2d 256. We find a definite suspension appropriate in this case. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months with one year of the suspension stayed pending successful completion of a one-year probation period and appropriate counseling to address the problems that caused respondent to engage in the underlying misconduct. Cost taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

STONEY GLENN,

D.O.C. # A51181,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv256-MW/MAF

OFFICER WILLIS, and

OFFICER MAXWELL,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 17. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order, and all pending 

motions are DENIED.” The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on October 27, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00256-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7927** 

ROGER STEVENSON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. APRIL SHOUP, Unit Manager at the Marion Correctional Institution; JASON DOBSON, Case Manager; TURNER SOUTH , Defendants

– Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cv - 00305

- GCM )

Submitted : July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

B efore NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Roger Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger Stevenson appeal s from the district court’s order granting summary j udgment in favor of Defendants in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. The district court entered judgment on October 9, 2009, and Stevenson noted a timely appeal on October 13, 2009. On October 22, 2009,
Steven son filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)

- (b) and 59(e), seeking to set aside and amend the district court’s findings and alter or amend the October 9 judgment. Defendants filed a response in opposition in November 2009. Stevenson’s motion remains pending in the district court, and the court has not indicated any inclination to grant it
. In the interest of avoiding further delay in this case , we

or der a limited remand and direct the district court to promptly consider the motion on its merits. See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp. , 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999). If the court concludes that the motion is meritless, it should deny it ; if the court i s inclined to grant the motion, it should issue a short memorandum so stating. T he record, as supplemented, will be returned to this court for further consideration after the district court’s ruling
. In ordering this remand, we express no opinion as to t he merits of Stevenson’s motion.
REMANDED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of IR  BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Wilhelm,, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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;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/ MICHAEL WILHELM
                                               -----------------------
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               May 18, 2004

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an 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 Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
§ 3434.8 Appeals. ( a ) An institution not listed as a HSACU in Appendix B to this part may submit an appeal to address denial of a certification made pursuant to this part. Such appeals must be in writing and received by the HSACU Appeals Officer, Policy and Oversight Division, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 800 9th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024 within 30 days following an announcement of institutions designated for certification. The Appeals Officer will consider the record of the decision in question, any further written submissions by the institution, and other available information and shall provide the appellant a written decision as promptly as circumstances permit. Such appeals constitute an administrative review of the decision appealed from and are not conducted as an adjudicative proceeding.
( b ) Appeals involving an agriculture-related field of study must include the CIP code and program title of the field of study (or major).
( c ) Appeals from non-HSI schools will not be considered.
( d ) The NIFA Assistant Director of the Institute of Youth, Family, and Community shall serve as the Appeals Officer.
( e ) In considering such appeals or administrative reviews, the Appeals Officer shall take into account alleged errors in professional judgment or alleged prejudicial procedural errors by NIFA officials. The Appeals Officer's decision may: ( 1 ) Reverse the appealed decision;
( 2 ) Affirm the appealed decision;
( 3 ) Where appropriate, withhold a decision until additional materials are provided. The Appeals Officer may base his/her decision in whole or part on matters or factors not discussed in the decision appealed from.
( f ) If the NIFA decision on the appeal is adverse to the appellant or if an appellant's request for review is rejected, the appellant then has the option of submitting a request to the NIFA Deputy Director for Food and Community Resources for further review.
( g ) The request for further review must be submitted to Policy and Oversight Division, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 800 9th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024 within 30 days following the Appeals Officer's decision.
( h ) No institution shall be considered to have exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to the certification or decision described in this part until the NIFA Deputy Director for Food and Community Resources has issued a final administrative decision pursuant to this section. The decision of the NIFA Deputy Director for Food and Community Resources is considered final.
( i ) Appellants shall be notified in writing of any decision made by NIFA in regards to the appeal.
1 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

Gary Whited, 

Claimant Below, Petitioner 

v.) No. 23-440 (JCN: 2019006554) 

 (ICA No. 22-ICA-300) 

 

Blackhawk Mining, LLC, 

Employer Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

 

Petitioner Gary Whited appeals the June 15, 2023, memorandum decision of the 

Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”). See Whited v. Blackhawk Mining, LLC, No. 22-ICA-300, 

2023 WL 4029122 (W. Va. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent 

Blackhawk Mining, LLC filed a timely response.1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in 

affirming the Board of Review’s order, which reversed the claim administrator’s decision to grant 

the petitioner no additional permanent partial disability above his previous award of 3% permanent 

partial disability. Instead, the Board of Review granted him an additional 2% permanent partial 

disability award for a total of 5% permanent partial disability. 

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the ICA committed clear error in adopting the decision 

of the Board of Review, which ignored the weight of the credible, medical evidence in the record. 

The petitioner maintains that his treating physician Mae Hyre, M.D., along with Michael 

Kominsky, D.O., and Robert Walker, M.D., best accounted for all impairments resulting from the 

petitioner’s compensable conditions, and their opinions assigning an additional percentage rating 

should have been adopted by the ICA. The respondent counters by arguing that the ICA’s decision 

should be affirmed, as it is legally correct and supported by the reliable, probative, substantial, and 

preponderant evidence in the record. 

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of 

Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty. 

Comm’n, No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. April 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record 

and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 

21(c). 

 Affirmed. 

1

 The petitioner is represented by counsel Stephen P. New and Amanda J. Taylor, and the 

respondent is represented by counsel Sean Harter. 

FILED 

August 27, 2024 

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 
2 

 

ISSUED: August 27, 2024 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Tim Armstead 

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker 

Justice John A. Hutchison 

Justice William R. Wooton 

Justice C. Haley Bunn