alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Ruffin , 2014-Ohio-1885.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-11-208

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 5/5/2014 : CHRISTOPHER RUFFIN, : Defendant-Appellant. :

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2013-07-1159

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecutin g Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Christopher Ruffin, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose anyButler CA2013-11-208

- 2 - errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

RINGLAND, P.J., S. POWELL and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

THEODORE CABANISS, Guardian ad Litem to Minor Child T.C.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PFIZER INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1205

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-01242-WQHAHG, Judge William Q. Hayes.

______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s show cause order, the appellant requests transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While appellee opposes 

transfer on the ground that the appeal is meritless, we 

deem it the better course to transfer for the Ninth Circuit 

to consider any arguments on the merits. 

Accordingly,

Case: 23-1205 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2023
2 CABANISS v. PFIZER INC.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

March 27, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1205 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER CLERK’S OFFICE

CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000

February 1, 2019

Federal Circuit Schedules April Session for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Area

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is pleased to announce that it 

intends to sit in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota as part of its April 2019

session. The Federal Circuit will also hold its regular session in Washington, D.C. 

Panels of the court will hear arguments at the following Minneapolis-Saint Paul 

area law schools and the federal courthouse:

Monday, April 1, 2019 University of St. Thomas 

School of Law (Minneapolis) 

Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Warren E. Burger Federal 

Building & United States 

Courthouse (Saint Paul)

Wednesday, April 3, 2019 University of Minnesota Law 

School (Minneapolis) 

The cases scheduled for the April 2019 session will be posted on the court’s website

once finalized. However, this special sitting of the court may be modified or 

postponed depending on the availability of an appropriation funding the operations 

of the court. 

The Federal Circuit regularly hears arguments outside of Washington, D.C. as part 

of its nationwide jurisdiction and statutory requirement to provide “reasonable 

opportunities to citizens to appear before the court.” Most recently, the Federal 

Circuit has held sessions in Chicago, Illinois; New York City, New York; Los 

Angeles, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; and Wilmington, Delaware.

For additional information, please contact the Clerk’s Office at 202-275-8035.
S89G0503.

#### PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. BURNETTI.

(387 SE2d 570)

Weltner, Justice.

Burnetti filed suit to recover “no-fault” benefits as a pedestrian, claiming that he was injured when he was forced to leap from the path of an oncoming automobile. There was no physical contact between him and the automobile. The insurer of the automobile filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court, and affirmed on appeal. *Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burnetti,*192 Ga. App. 593 (385 SE2d 446) (1989). We granted certiorari.

1. OCGA § 33-34-7 (a) (3) provides that “no-fault” benefits must be paid for economic loss resulting from:

> Accidental bodily injury sustained by any other person as a result of being struck by the owner’s motor vehicle while a pedestrian in this state.

2. There is no doubt that Burnetti was a “pedestrian” at the time of the incident. Similarly, there is no doubt that he was *not*“struck *795by the owner’s motor vehicle.”1

Decided January 30, 1990.

*Wildman, Harrold, Allen, Dixon & Branch, Alfred B. Adams III, Frank 0. Brown, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Carter & Butt, Eugene D. Butt,*for appellee.

*Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, Robin L. Peek, Joseph B. Atkins,*amicus curiae.

3. We think that the public policy in favor of certainty and reliability in the interpretation of the statute must prevail.2 Accordingly, we interpret that language (“as a result of being struck by the owner’s motor vehicle . . .”) to fix as *sine qua non*for recovery of benefits by an injured pedestrian the circumstance of “being struck by the owner’s motor vehicle.” To hold otherwise would, we fear, becloud the statute, and would place upon the courts the duty of determining on an *ad hoc*basis an infinite variety of claims arising from alleged “near-misses” and sudden emergencies.

4. The motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer should have been granted by the trial court.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Clarke, C. J., Smith, P. J., Weltner, Bell and Fletcher, JJ., and Judge Joe C. Crumbley concur. Hunt and Benham, JJ., not participating.*

1

 The Court of Appeals relied upon the language of *Johnson v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.,*177 Ga. App. 204, 205 (338 SE2d 687) (1985), as follows: “ ‘The “striking” force can be either the force which most immediately comes in contact with the object struck, or it can be the force setting in motion a chain of events leading up to the striking of an object.’ ” In that case, one vehicle struck a parked vehicle, propelling the latter against a pedestrian. In *Johnson,*the pedestrian was struck by a vehicle. In this case, it was *Burnetti*who was the “striking” object, albeit, as he claims, as a matter of dire and imminent necessity.

2

 Note that Burnetti may plead a common law cause of action in tort against the driver of the vehicle, independent of the outcome of this appeal.
# Comments on: 19-1321: SANDERS v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential
No. 11-9128.

#### Cummings *v.*Ortega et al.

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10894.

#### Jeffery *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , No. 04-55838

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 

#  CV-03-06706-CBM R AYMOND P. N OVAK , ORDER

Defendant-Appellee. 

# 

Filed August 1, 2006
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge.

ORDER
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court, **1** it is ordered that this case be reheard bythe en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The threejudge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

**1** Judge Fisher is recused.

8905PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
     ANACOMP, INC.'S MARCH 31, 1997 FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REQPORT AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
   
</LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         36,634
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  66,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6,587
<INVENTORY>                                    28,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,414
<PP&E>                                         36,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,081
<BONDS>                                        255,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       137
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,366
<SALES>                                        138,228
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               230,973
<CGS>                                          101,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  240,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             19,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,380)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                12,536
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (40,016)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (3.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.05)
        


</TABLE>
# Comments on: Notice of Implementation of the New Scheduling Conflicts Procedure
No. 11-5093.

#### Redmond *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1760: FG SRC, LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rZTHFfFaHC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-17-2022-22-1760-fg-src-llc-v-intel-corporation-order-22-1760-order-8-17-2022_1992847\/\">22-1760: FG SRC, LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-17-2022-22-1760-fg-src-llc-v-intel-corporation-order-22-1760-order-8-17-2022_1992847\/embed\/#?secret=rZTHFfFaHC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1760: FG SRC, LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"rZTHFfFaHC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: FG SRC, LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1760 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
375P09-6

#### State v. Avenger Ridgeway

1. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Supplement PDR

1. Dismissed as moot

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for Moratorium

2. Dismissed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Request to Order Public Records

3. Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GROUP LONG
DISTANCE, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ENDED APRIL 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 502,946
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,679,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (388,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,800,562
<PP&E>                                                 127,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (113,877)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1,813,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6,177,919
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                           6,177,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1,813,730
<SALES>                                             22,837,340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    22,837,340
<CGS>                                               11,834,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       11,834,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,454,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1,127,899
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      83,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5,337,498
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,769,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,567,598
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,567,598
<EPS-BASIC>                                             1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             1.02


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C.SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EnvironmentalSolutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June30, 2013 (the "Report"), Mark Yung, Executive Chairman of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

DATE:AUGUST 19, 2013

BY:/S/ MARK YUNGMARK YUNGEXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental SolutionsWorldwide, Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

** **
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2000-7498.                 

*Date Filed:*                     June 9, 2000.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     PTC31 SOUTH 0085 dated 6 June 2000; South Pacific Resolutions r1-r30; Minutes—PTC31 SOUTH 0086 dated 6 June 2000; Tables—PTC31 SOUTH Fares 0023 dated 6 June 2000; Intended effective date: 1 October 2000.                 

Andrea M. Jenkins, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 00-16384 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Year-to-Date Activity 

as of June 27, 2014

Court or Agency of Origin

Pending as of 

10/01/13

Docketed 

10/01/13 to date

Terminated 

10/01/13 to date

Currently 

Pending 

Boards of Contract Appeals 8 17 9 16

Court of Federal Claims 119 111 120 110

Court of International Trade 55 29 41 43

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 104 99 121 82

District Courts 438 395 358 475

Department of Justice 2 6 3 5

Department of Veterans Affairs 1 2 0 3

International Trade Commission 19 13 15 17

Merit Systems Protection Board 104 155 166 93

Office of Personnel Management 0 0 0 0

Office of Compliance 0 2 0 2

Patent & Trademark Office 118 142 135 125

Writs & Other Original Proceedings 15 41 49 7

TOTAL 983 1012 1017 978
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/23 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 23 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
# Comments on: Public Advisory for Live Audio Feed of Court Sessions
No. 11-61.

#### Pham *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certio-rari denied.
#### Thomas G. MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert O. LAMPERT, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-35252.

D.C. No. CV-01-00809-TMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 2004.*

Decided March 12, 2004.

Steven T. Wax, FPD, FPDOR-Federal Public, Defender’s Office (Portland), Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Office of the Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before McKEOWN, FISHER, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, District Judge.**

*

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

**

 Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, United States District Judge for the District of Southern California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Miller appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we deny the petition.

We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas *256petition de novo, *Clark v. Murphy,*331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003), and for clear error the district court’s findings of fact. *McClure v. Thompson,*323 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir.2003).

The only issue Miller raises on appeal is whether a juror violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury by introducing extrinsic information into the jury deliberations. Miller’s claim does not withstand AEDPA review because, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of *Turner v. Louisiana,*379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965), the relevant case on jury impartiality. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge found that the juror did not introduce extrinsic evidence into the jury deliberations, but rather permissibly applied her life experiences to the facts already in evidence. The record supports these findings. On this record, Miller cannot overcome the hurdle imposed by AEDPA. However, even if the juror’s statements could be considered extrinsic evidence, we conclude that the jury’s exposure to it does not constitute reversible error. *See Sassounian v. Roe,*230 F.3d 1097, 1109 (9th Cir.2000).

DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 10-11053.

#### Pena-Manzanarez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 23-1051: SHIBUMI SHADE, INC. v. BEACH SHADE LLC [ORDER], Nonprecedential
# Comments on: 19-1852: WHITEWATER WEST INDUSTRIES v. ALLESHOUSE [ERRATA], Nonprecedential