alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH E. GUNTHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ED CASTINETA, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-997

Judge Peter C. Economus

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the June 5, 2014 Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 33.) In light of a previous show cause order, 

the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice the claims against 

Defendant Officer Lucal for failure to obtain service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

Because Defendant Lucal is the only remaining defendant in this action, dismissal of the claims 

against him results in dismissal of the case.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties 

that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days results in a waiver 

of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the 

judgment of the District Court. On June 10, 2014, the Report and Recommendation was returned 

as undeliverable, the return envelope indicating that Plaintiff had been released. Plaintiff has not 

filed an alternative address for the Court to send correspondence. No objections have been filed, 

and the time period for filing objections has expired.

The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such 

objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this action from the Court’s pending case list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 2:10-cv-00997-PCE-MRA Doc #: 36 Filed: 08/06/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

ANTONIO BARBA DUENAS

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 0 22

- C R

Appeal from the

41 st D istrict Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 201 0 0 D0 2223 )

O R D E R

On April 12, 2018

, the Court granted Michael R. Gibson’s motion to withdraw as counsel and gave A ppellant, An tonio Barba Duenas

, until May 12, 2018 to advise the Court if new

counsel ha d been retained. As of this day, the Court has not received a response from the Appellant.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing t o determine whether

the A ppellant wishes to proceed pro se. The t rial court shall enter all necessary orders and/or findings and make Appellant aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self

- representation and develop evidence as to whether appellant’s apparent decision to relinquish bene fits associated with counsel and to proceed pro se is knowingly and intelligently made under Hubbard v. State

, 739 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)

The trial court shall forward its findings to the District Clerk of El Paso County, Texas,

on or before Jun e 4

, 201 8 . The District Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and forward the same to this Court on or before June 14 , 201 8

. Further, the transcription of the hearing shall be prepared, certified and filed with this Court on

or before J une 14

, 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15 th day of May , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



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 DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), I, Stephen A. Aanderud, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: May 14, 2004



/s/ Stephen A. AanderudStephen A. AanderudChief Financial Officer
#### City of Hollywood, *et al.,*v. State, *ex rel.*Ralph M. Winters, a resident of Lucas County, Ohio.

176 So. 77.

Opinion Filed May 12, 1937.

*Julian E. Ross, C. H. Eandefeld, Jr., R. R. Saunders*and *Rogers, Morris & Griffin,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Hope Strong, Casey & Walton*and *William K. Whitfield*(of Tallahassee) for Defendant in Error.

*154Per Curiam.

This cause coming on to be heard upon rehearing and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and read and considered the briefs of the parties herein, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the judgment and that accordingly the said judgment should be and the same is now ordered affirmed.

But it appearing to the Court that it is necessary that the relators below do amend their peremptory writ of mandamus so as to make the same applicable to- a current tax roll, and to the present officials in office of the respondent, in order that the same shall be an effective writ, it is further ordered that said affirmance of the judgment' is with leave to make such amendments in the court below as will make the judgment for a peremptory writ of mandamus an effective judgment for the protection and enforcement of relators’ rights in the premises.

And it further appearing to the Court by petition of the defendant in error that the respondents below are desirous of presenting to and having considered by the Circuit Court an application for a modification of the strict enforcement of the peremptory writ of mandamus, if and as amended as aforesaid, in accordance with the principles declared by this Court in the following case recently here decided: City of Sarasota, *et al.,*v. State of Florida, *ex rel.,*R. W. Evans, opinion filed February 16, 1937; it is thereupon further considered, ordered and adjudged that the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby permitted to decide and determine, upon proper application, whether or not it shall stay the issuance or modify the enforcement of the peremptory writ of mandamus, judgment for which is hereby affirmed, in accordance with equitable principles, in order to permit the respondents to successfully complete their refunding operations if possible, retaining jurisdiction of such cause on its *155docket for such further appropriate orders as may be consistent with law and justice.

Let judgment be entered accordingly and mandate issued in conformity therewith.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8861 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the destruction authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to articles 

that present a significant public health concern, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2024 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana (for himself and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) 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 to 

extend the destruction authority of the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to articles that present a 

significant public health concern, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Destruction of Haz5 ardous Imports Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8861 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN REFUSED ARTICLES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 801(a) of the Federal 

3 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in the seventh sentence, by striking ‘‘as de6 scribed under subsection (b).’’ and inserting ‘‘as de7 scribed under subsection (b), or any article refused 

8 admission under this section, if the Secretary of 

9 Health and Human Services determines that such 

10 article presents a significant public health concern.’’; 

11 and 

12 (2) in the eighth, ninth, and tenth sentences, by 

13 striking ‘‘drug or device’’ each place it appears and 

14 inserting ‘‘drug, device, or other article’’. 

15 (b) PROHIBITED ACTS.—Section 301 of the Federal 

16 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amend17 ed by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(jjj) The unauthorized movement, or introduction or 

19 delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, includ20 ing export, of an article that the Secretary has decided 

21 to destroy under the seventh sentence of section 801(a).’’. 

22 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub23 sections (a) and (b) shall apply to articles beginning on 

24 the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of 

25 this Act. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8861 IH

1 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Health and 

2 Human Services, acting through the Commissioner of 

3 Food and Drugs, shall— 

4 (1) not later than 90 days after the date of en5 actment of this Act, finalize such revisions to regula6 tions as may be necessary to implement the amend7 ments made by subsections (a) and (b); and 

8 (2) ensure that such regulations are consistent 

9 with any applicable international agreements. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, William Strauss, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provide Commerce, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 29, 2005
No. 54779.

#### The Otto Gerdau Company and The Otto Gerdau Co. *v.*United States,

protests 157670-K and 158445-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8931 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8931

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 18 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga National 
                           Battlefield Park.

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

SECTION 1. SARATOGA NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK.

    (a) Redesignation.--Saratoga National Historical Park shall 
hereafter be known and designated as ``Saratoga National Battlefield 
Park''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to Saratoga National 
Historical Park shall be deemed to be a reference to Saratoga National 
Battlefield Park.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10921

Summary Calendar

 

IMOGENE MARSH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

GARY O. BOOTH; MARTY BERDAN; FRANK WHITTAKER;

DON WHITLOCK; LINDA STEUWE; MARCIE GAITHER,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CV-1836-G

- - - - - - - - - -

July 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Imogene Marsh appeals the district court’s dismissal,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), of her Title VII complaint. 

She argues that she submitted sufficient evidence at trial to
No. 95-10921

- 2 -

establish her prima facie case of employment discrimination based

on race and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal

for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. 

Marsh v. Brady et al., No. 3:92-CV-1836-G (N.D. Tex. Sep. 25,

1995). Marsh’s motion to have her reply brief filed out of time

is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30119 Summary Calendar

DAVID M. NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE F. MCELVEEN, Sheriff; SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OF CALCASIEU PARISH, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1054 C/W 96-CV-1134

- - - - - - - - - - July 22, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David M. Nichols, Texas state prisoner # 666133, argues that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and in dismissing Nichols’ complaint alleging that he was falsely imprisoned by the defendants.No. 97-30119 - 2 - We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district court, and the briefs, and find that the dismissal of the complaint should be affirmed substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court. See Nichols v. McElveen , No. 96- CV-1054 c/w 96-CV-1134 (W.D. La., Jan. 8, 1997). Nichols’ motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
#### 1020 Park Ave., Inc., Petitioner, v Richard B. Raynor et al., Respondents.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Trial Term, New County,

December 7, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*David D. Wallerstein*for respondent. *Swartz, Stark, Amron & Haberman (Alan Haberman*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Herman Cahn, J.

On May 30, 1973, the parties entered into a lease for a suite of offices at 1020 Park Avenue, New York, New York. The lease, by its terms, expired on June 30, 1978. This summary proceeding was commenced on the theory that respondent holds over after the expiration of the lease.

The lease contains an option whereby respondent is given the right to extend his term for an additional five-year period at the stated rent. The option must be exercised "by the tenant giving written notice of exercising such option by certified or registered mail, on or before June 30, 1977”. The questions upon which this proceeding turns are (1) whether respondent properly exercised the option; and if so, (2) whether he later revoked his exercise of said option.

As to the first question, respondent claims that by letter *289mailed on March 22, 1977, he exercised the option to renew. Petitioner concedes this point in its memorandum of law, and therefore this point is no longer in issue herein.

After the option was exercised, but before June 30, 1977, respondent again wrote to petitioner stating that he "will have to give very careful consideration to renewing my lease”. In said letter, respondent further stated that he felt the rent should be less than called for in the lease. Petitioner now claims herein that the exercise of the option was thereby revoked, while respondent claims that it was exercised and not revoked.

An option is an irrevocable offer for a specified period of time. (General Obligations Law, § 5-1109.) Like an offer, it ripens and matures into a contract the moment the person to whom the option was given notifies the party giving the option that he will accept it. *(Gorham v Jackson,*177 NYS 80, affd 232 NY 579.) Once an option is properly accepted by the offeree, the requisite mutuality of assent has been supplied and the previously unilateral offer becomes a mutually binding bilateral contract. *(Silverstein v United Cerebral Palsy Assn.,*17 AD2d 160.) Thus, the effect of exercise of the option is to convert the offer into a binding contract, which cannot be unilaterally altered or revoked.

Once respondent exercised the option in the lease, he was bound and could not withdraw his acceptance. *(Laurino v Hewman,*17 Misc 2d 654.) Thus, it is clear that the lease is indeed in effect for a term ending June 30, 1983. Therefore, the instant proceeding is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with this Annual Report of Plaster Caster Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Klamka, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) Such Annual Report on form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Plaster Caster Inc.  April 15, 2011By:/s/ J.D KlamkaPeter KlamkaChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP07-172-001] 

Take notice that on March 23, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 148, bearing a proposed effective date of March 17, 2007. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-6209 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 56550.

protests 162534-K, etc. (New York).

#### Almast Aivazzadeh et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.