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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Tyran Wood,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and

Correction, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-972

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tyran Wood (“Wood”) is an inmate at the Noble Correctional

Institution. On October 29, 2010, he brought suit against Defendants the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Wexford Health Source,

and Dr. Andrew Eddy, alleging that he had been denied medical care and physical

therapy necessary to properly recover from injuries received in a motorcycle

accident preceding his incarceration.

On March 8, 2011, ODRC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,

arguing that this case should be dismissed against it because the claim Plaintiff has

brought, unconstitutional deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, is made

actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and it cannot be sued under this statute. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. On April 21, 2011, the Magistrate Judge

1

Case: 2:10-cv-00972-GLF-MRA Doc #: 22 Filed: 07/07/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the motion for judgment

on the pleadings be granted. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and

Recommendation within the fourteen-day period prescribed by statute.

Upon de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the Court ADOPTS

the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS ODRC’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Doc. 16). As Defendant ODRC is an agency of the State of Ohio, it is not

a “person” and cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of

State Police, 591 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). This action is properly DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE with respect to Defendant ODRC. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel or,

in the alternative, for leave to voluntarily dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(2). The Magistrate Judge previously denied Plaintiff’s initial motion for

appointment of counsel without prejudice, stating that important information

concerning the continuing nature of Plaintiff’s actual injury is not before the Court. 

Plaintiff’s renewed motion provides no additional information, and was not filed, as

the Magistrate Judge mandated, after the parties had filed motions for summary

judgment.

Defendants Dr. Andrew Eddy and Wexford Health Source timely answered

the complaint, but have not taken any subsequent action in this case and would

suffer little or no prejudice by the granting of voluntary dismissal. The Court

accordingly GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 20) as a motion to voluntarily

DISMISS this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to Defendants Dr.

2

Case: 2:10-cv-00972-GLF-MRA Doc #: 22 Filed: 07/07/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Andrew Eddy and Wexford Health Source. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

close this case.

/s/ Gregory L. Frost 

United States District Judge 

3

Case: 2:10-cv-00972-GLF-MRA Doc #: 22 Filed: 07/07/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
----

| Date: March 31, 2011 | By:    | /s/ O. Leonard Dorminey                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | O. Leonard Dorminey                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                 |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|                 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Date: March 31, 2011 | By:    | /s/ T. Heath Fountain                                            |
|                 |   | T. Heath Fountain                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|                 |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                 |   | Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                 |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00149-CV

SUNDIAL OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.

v.

NUECES COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT

On Appeal from the

117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019DCV-3708-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 22, 2021
----

# Virtual CD-ROM/Floppy Disk Library

      -  Home
      -  About
      -  Search
      -  List All

IMPAC II request for proposal and supplemental material

 System Details :

System requirements: IBM PC; WordPerfect 5.1.

 Notes :

Title from Word Perfect title page."April 19, 1993"--Download page.Distributed to depository libraries on floppy disk, shipping list no.: 93-0016-E.

 Subject Headings :

              National Institutes of Health (U.S.).              Division of Research Grants.              Information Systems Branch.            Public contracts -- United StatesResearch and development contracts, Government -- United StatesFederal aid to medical research -- United States -- Information services

 Record Info : 

(OCoLC)ocm85845880

      Indiana University Catalog Information

## HE 1.60: IM 7/FLOPPY

Installation Notes :

        -  Download :     Browse   

Raw Mets Record

----

IU Bloomington Libraries

           Comments: libgpd@indiana.edu

  			Hosted by the IU Digital Library Program

----

        - Copyright  © 				    
2012
 				The Trustees of  Indiana University
        - Copyright Complaints
        - Libraries Privacy Policy
        - Accessibility Help
**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 the Annual Report of BRISSET BEER INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended May 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Malone, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and                          
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                    
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





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.





|Date: July 20, 2022 |  | */s/ Kevin Malone*                                    | 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|                    |  | Kevin Malone                                          | 
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) |
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

#### Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

####  

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Norcross Safety Products L.L.C. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David F. Myers, Jr., ChiefFinancial Officer of the Registrant, 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: May 12, 2008 | By:   | /s/ DAVID F. MYERS, JR.                            |
|---------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                |            | David F. Myers, Jr.                           |
|                |            | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, |
|                |            | Secretary and Manager                              |
|                |            | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       |

 

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9014 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish and clarify the applicable 

statute of limitations for persons seeking remedy for legal wrongs because 

of agency action or adversely affected by agency action. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 2024 

Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr. CORREA, Ms. NORTON, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania, Ms. SCANLON, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. DELAURO, and Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish and 

clarify the applicable statute of limitations for persons 

seeking remedy for legal wrongs because of agency action 

or adversely affected by agency action. 

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 ‘‘Corner Post Reversal 

5 Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9014 IH

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT OF REVIEW. 

2 Section 702 of title 5, United States Code, is amend3 ed by inserting ‘‘Except as otherwise expressly provided 

4 by law, an action under this section shall be commenced 

5 within 6 years after the date on which the relevant agency 

6 action was finalized.’’ after ‘‘judicial review thereof.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 16, 2020

Order 

Clerk

November 16, 2020

160658(187)(188)

160660

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE

DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA

KANDEL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 160658

COA: 334663

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET and OFFICE OF AUDITOR

GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________

TAXPAYERS FOR MICHIGAN

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, STEVE

DUCHANE, RANDALL BLUM, and SARA

KANDEL,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 160660

COA: 334663

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF

TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET and OFFICE OF AUDITOR

GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the joint motions of appellants to extend the time for 

filing their respective reply briefs in Nos. 160658 and160660 and for immediate 

consideration are GRANTED. The reply briefs will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before December 7, 2020.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, John S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portec Rail
Products, 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 financial condition, 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 Act Rules 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, 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 end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    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 case of 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 over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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 financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. May 12,
2004
    
    /s/ John S.
CooperDate
    
    John S. CooperPresident and Chief Executive Officer
No. 52722.

protest 130713-K (New York).

#### Joensson & Cross *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial a report of the collector was admitted in evidence wherein it is admitted that the cassia oil is entitled to free entry. The protest was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6256

HENRY W. MARTIN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM K. SUTER, Clerk of the Supreme Court

of the United States; TROY D. CAHILL, Assistant Clerk of Court; CYNTHIA RAPP, Assistant

Clerk of Court; BERT M. MONTAGUE, Clerk of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit; CHERYL M. WILLIAMSON, Deputy Clerk,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-2341-6-OAK)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Suter,

No. CA-95-2341-6-OAK (D.S.C. Dec. 14, 1995). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-128-14

William P. Deem, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 223) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: August 15, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00128-JLG-TPK Doc #: 248 Filed: 08/15/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
p.1 

OAR Box 1394 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

48) ll-C-18 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/3/2008 7:52:01 AM Sheet 48 of 56 
P.2 

z^.94-52 

oF Si 

| . « ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

| 532£ * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 x^/ 

June 20, 1995 

OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES Bob Lacovara 

Director of Technical Services 

Composites Fabricators Association 

1735 N. Lynn St., Ste. 950 

Arlington, VA 22209-2022 

Dear Bob: 

This letter is written to request your assistance in a study 

that I am going to perform of pollution prevention technologies 

for reinforced plastic composites open-mold production processes. 

The study is intended to support the development of the pre-MACT 

for the reinforced plastic composites industry. 

As I mentioned in our phone conversation earlier today, I. 

would like to determine the specific applicabilities and 

limitations of several pollution prevention technologies within 

each open-mold production process. The pollution prevention 

technologies that are within the scope of this study are provided 

in the attached list.. I would like to determine, preferably with 

significant input from the industry, the processes and cases in 

which they can be used, and the ones in which they cannot. Your 

assistance in providing industry contacts and offering some 

guidance and feedback would be invaluable. 

If you agree to this, please first review the. attached list 

and let me know if there is something that should be added or 

removed. Then, maybe you could suggest how open-mold processes 

should be categorized for this study. Lastly, if CFA could 

provide industry contacts that represent these categories, that 

would be a big help. 

Again, I would greatly appreciate any assistance that you 

can offer. 

Sincerely, 

J g"]*?T p p'T'n (W^-^ ty. iSoHA*-^ 

i'J "Jordan M. Spooner 

)']'•* OCT I ;; frr^i

 : i;iJ Environmental Engineer 

l

kl"C " ,v,; y1

 'Ji Pollution Prevention Division 

Attachment 

Racyclad/Racyclabla .Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
P.3 

Pollution Prevention Technologies for 

Reinforced Plastic Composites Open-Mold Production 

A) Resin Formulations 

Low styrene 

Water-based 

Styrene-suppressed 

Ultraviolet-cured 

Benzoyl peroxide-catalyzed 

Geicoat Formulations 

Low styrene 

Styrene-suppressed 

Fast-curing 

Gelcoat/Resin Applicators 

Pressure fed roller 

Flow coater 

HVLP spray gun 

Air containment spray gun 

Multi-hole spray applicator 

Miscellaneous 

Water-based cleaner 

Water-based mold release agent 

Low styrene adhesive 

Alternative Application Processes 

Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) 

Seeman Composites Resin Infusion Molding Process (SCRIMP) 

2.
Before the First Division,

May 9, 1945

No. 50167.

#### Protest 28610-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

*247Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 49930, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the-claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was sustained.