alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BRIGGS, Appellant, v. CINCINNATI RECREATION COMMISSION, Appellee, et al. 

[Cite as *Briggs v. Cincinnati Recreation Comm.*(1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 610.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

No. C-971059.

Decided Sept. 25, 1998.

*611*Joel Briggs, pro se.*

*Fay D. Dupuis,*City Solicitor, and *Mark S. Yurick,*Assistant City Solicitor, for appellee.

Painter, Judge.

On June 26, 1997, plaintiff-appellant, Joel Briggs, filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (case No. A-9704730) in which he alleged that the Cincinnati Recreation Commission had unlawfully refused to let him use the Mount Auburn Community Center steam room during certain hours. On August 12, 1997, the trial court dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, evidently not eager to become the arbiter of steam-room scheduling.

Briggs did not appeal the judgment. But he was undeterred in his quest. On August 15,1997, Briggs filed a second complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (case No. A-9705635) that set forth exactly the same allegations as those in his prior complaint. In November 1997, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant-appellee “Cincinnati Recreation Commission Office,” as the entity Briggs had named. The basis of summary judgment was that *res judicata,*or claim preclusion, barred Briggs’s second lawsuit. Briggs has appealed the entry of summary judgment and has asserted one assignment of error.

Briggs’s sole assignment is that his second lawsuit should not have been barred by *res judicata.*But, it is well established law that an existing final judgment on the merits between parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims that were or might have been litigated in the first lawsuit.1 A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits.2 Were the law otherwise, a copy machine could take the place of an appeal. In the present case, Briggs’s first lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, and his second lawsuit asserted the same allegations advanced in the first lawsuit. “With prejudice” means the case is over, unless appealed. This case was over when Briggs did not appeal the first judgment. Thus, *res judicata*barred the second lawsuit, just as common sense would have barred the first.

*612Therefore, Briggs’s sole assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Doan, P.J., and Shannon, J., concur.

Raymond E. Shannon, J., retired, of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment.

1

. *Ft. Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd.*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395, 692 N.E.2d 140, 144.

2

. *Id..; Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.*(Dec. 22, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1308, unreported, 1992 WL 385908.
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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of Kandi Technologies, Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Hu Xiaoming, President and Chief Executive Officer and Zhu Xiaoying, Chief Financial Officer, 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) 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/ Hu XiaomingHu XiaomingPresident and Chief Executive Officer
 /s/ Zhu XiaoyingZhu XiaoyingChief Financial Officer





March 31, 2011
#### Calvin Otis GRAVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27345.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1955.

C. S. Farmer, David G. Copeland, Waco, for' appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Eugene Brady, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The indictment returned against appellant charged that he made an assault upon and did ravish and have carnal knowledge of a named female under 18 years of age, who was not ‘his wife. Trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, the jury assessing a punishment of five years in the penitentiary. Appellant’s application for 'suspended sentence was not granted. ■

The evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction for statutory rape for the reason that the prosecutrix was admittedly of unchaste character.

The trial court, in his charge, authorized a conviction upon a finding by the jury that appellant ravished and obtained carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix by threats such as might reasonably create a just fear of death or great bodily .harm in view of the relative condition of the parties as to health, strength and other circumstances of the case. No objections were made to the charge.

The question for our determination is therefore whether or not proof of rape by threats will sustain a conviction under indictment which charges only that the accused assaulted, ravished and had carnal knowledge of the named female under 18 years of age, who was not his wife.

*556Stated in another way, are' the allegations of the indictment sufficient to include rape by threats as-well as by force?

The State confesses that such manner of commission of the offense of rape is not -included in the allegations of the indictment, and that the 'case should not have been submitted to the jury on the theory of rape by threats.. We are inclined to agree.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
## _ . - d!
- ------------ - ---- Sustain able

__ Atta i n able

Maryland Department of Plann i ng November 26,2012

. ' ; . Mr. Roger Thunell Chief, SIP Planning Division Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230 STATE CLEARINGHOIJSE REVIEW PROCESS State Application Identifier: MD20121119-0812 Project Description: Implementation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard State Implementation Plan Project Location: Maryland Clearinghouse Contact: Sophia Richardson Dear Mr. Thunell: Thank you for submitting your project for intergovernmental review. Participation in the Maryland Intergovernmental Review and Coordination (MIRC) process helps ensure project consistency with plans , programs, and objectives of State agencies and local governments. Notice of your application is being provided to State and local public officials through the Intergovernmental Monitor, which is a database of projects received by the State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance. This information may be viewed at http://planning.maryland.gov/emircpublic/. The project has been assigned a unique State Application Identifier that should be used on all documents and correspondence. If you need assistance or have questions, contact the State Clearinghouse staff noted above at 410-767-4490 or through e-mail atsrichardson@mdp.state.md.us. Thank you for your cooperation with the MIRC process. Sincerely,

Linda C . Janey, J.D. , Assistant Secretary P.S. Great News!! Your project may be eligible to be " Fast'Iracked" through the State permitting processes. For more information, go to: http:// easy. maryland.gov

/ wordpress

/ f asttrack / . LCJ:SR Enclosure(s) cc: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12-0812 N M .NEW . doc Martin O ' Malley , Governor Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor Richard Eberha rt Ha l l , AICp, Secretary Matthew J. Power , Deputy S ecretary 301 West Preston Street - Suite 1101 - Balt imore - Maryland - 21201 Tel : 410 . 767 . 4500 - Toll Free 1.877 . 767.6272 - TIY users : Ma ryland Relay - Planning.Maryland.gov
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

|   | Each of the undersigned officers of American CareSource Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies that: |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the three and twelve month periods ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  | March,  2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Wayne A. Schellhammer                                           |
|   |         |   |   | Wayne A. Schellhammer

Chief Executive Officer                      |
|   |         |   |   |                                                                |
| Date:  | March,  2007 |   | By:    | /s/ David S. Boone                                                  |
|   |         |   |   | David S. Boone

Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |         |   |   |                                                                |
| Date:  | March,  2007 |   | By:    | /s/ Steven M. Phillips                                              |
|   |         |   |   | Steven M. Phillips

Controller and Principal

Accounting Officer    |
|   |         |   |   |                                                                |

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

t0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144890

DEBORAH MAZUR, Personal Representative

of the Estate of John Mazur, Deceased,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144890

COA: 300519

Wayne CC: 09

- 028133

- NO

DETROIT DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, BAILIFF JOHN

DOE 1, and BAILIFF JOHN DOE 2,

Defendants,

and

BAILIFF FRED DIXON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the ques tions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ROBE RT C. CE RVAN TE Z, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C. K . PLI LER, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 06- 56352 D. C . No . C V- 0 4 - 0 0 6 2 5 - S GL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S t e phe n G . L a r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r9, 2009

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: K O Z IN S K I, C h i ef Ju d g e, T R O T T an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

A pp el l antC ervant ez appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for a w ri to f h ab eas co rp u s, al l eg i n g tw o erro rs. 

# FI LED DE C 22 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

F i r s t , i n c onne c t i on w i th the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e of m a ns l a ught e r , he as se rt s thatthe st at e tri al courterre d i n fai l i ng t o i nstructthe j ury thatthe S t at e bore th e b u r d e n o f

d is p r o v in g “h e a t o f

p a s s io n ” b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. T h is c la im fa i l s bec ause the fa i l ure of ast at e c ou rtt o i nstructon l es se r i ncl ud ed offens es do es n o t p r e s e n t af

e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n c o g n iz ab le o n f e d e r a l h ab e a s r e v ie w . S ol i s v. G a r c i a , 219 F . 3d 922, 929 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . A l s o, the C a l i f orni aC our tof A p p e a l h e ld th a t th e f

a c tu a l r e c o r d w a s u tte r ly d e v o id o f a n y e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld h a v e s u p p o r te d af

in d in g o f “h e a t o f p a s s io n .” T h is d e te rm in a tio n is w e ll supp ort ed by the re cord. A cc ordi ng l y, the C ou rtof A pp ea l corr ec t l y c on cl ud ed pu rs uantt o N ederv. U ni t ed S t at es , 52 7 U . S . 1 (19 99 ), thatany i nstruct i on al o m is s io n w a s h a rm le s s u n d e rC h ap m a n v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 1 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . L i ke w i s e , the om i s s i on of the i ns truc t i on ha d no s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous e f f e c tor i nfl uence on the j ury. B re chtv. A braham son, 50 7 U . S . 61 9, 63 8 (19 93 ). S e c ond, C e rva nt e z a r gue s tha tthe r e m ova l by the s t a t e tr i a l c our tof as i tt i ng j ur orw ho i ndi c a t e d tha ts he w oul d notf ol l ow the c our t ’ s or de r s de pr i ve d hi m of h i s ri g h tt o d u e p ro cess g u aran t eed b y th e S i x th an d F o u rt een th A m en d m en t s. T he C ou rtof A pp ea l foun d app ropri at e f ac tual and l egal cause f

or the tri al court ’ s dec i si on . W e a gree . M oreover, there do no tye texi stes t abl i shed rul es f r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t g o v e rn in g th e h a n d lin g o f ar e c a lc itr a n t ju r o r .3

AF F I R ME D.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41394 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS JOSE AGUERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-466-1

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Jose Aguero raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582-84 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not render 21 U.S.C. § 841 unconstitutional on its face. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Kenneth McCullum, certify that:


1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of the periods included in the year covered by this annual report of
         Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-011;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
         pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review
         required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
         the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under
         that agreement; and

5.       The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         trustee's or depositor's compliance with the minimum servicing or
         similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent
         public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
         Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
         procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar
         agreements, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

                  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents



Date: August 9, 2005

/s/ Kenneth McCullum

Kenneth McCullum
Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
#### SUZANNE M. SEARLES *v.*BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD ET AL.

(14107)

Spear, Hennessy and Freedman, Js.

Argued December 6, 1995

decision released January 9, 1996

*Suzanne M. Searles,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*Marjorie Wilder,*corporation counsel, for the appel-lee (defendant).

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the compensation review board is affirmed.
P.1 

OAR Box 1107 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

50) IV-E-6 

Docket Number: 

A-81-21 

Printed 4/11/2008 3:03:47 PM Sheet 50 of 90 
P.2 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

•incoming Call 

SJOutgolng Call 

Person Calling . I i 

Person Called 

ty/meth forttfilmsb' 3i8-Wl-4r7£\ 

i'roject No. 

Z3/-OZ3 - IO- C 

A-8J- 2 

IV-E-6 

Project Name 

^ Tine 

b/ZP/gfr ztob 

Activity 

fivLay\ fori). 

tlvlty / 

JB£$. 

k£F 

General Subject 

£c?sfs of- rc^WoWi.h^ £D£ ^ra^> jpnkr 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

<?Mlmrfi&d gfyartzfeb, -far <?ac4 -/&#£* £itf&rfar&-&Y~ encl\ 

-trmlr wejrr p^hlmatfA hy -sample ^r e yesif SJrsayi 

2#e greatest cod #4* /tf/yrrexfrrs' a&uxsfrfttff I&ZL 

/dorf half 4 4k*.$6&o:6CQ ,"77 ^ ejghhofos *frJ//d>d */>s&rir<J 

-1MJL&£1 

/??jp<. 

A&*d?r WL /ZtfO-bef* 

S igna ture itfcw *$&*i<
8A Pilot Services, LLC,

Request for amendments to FAA 333 UAS exemption

Exemption No. 12273

Regulatory Docket No . FAA

- 2015

- 2144

Contact:

William M. Ochoa

CEO, 8A Pilot Services, LLC.

719

- 351

- 2581

Will.ochoa@8apilotservices.comTo Whom It May C oncern:

Date: December 4, 2015

Re: Exemption No. 12273

Regul atory Docket No.: FAA

- 2015

- 2144

8A Pilot Services, LLC is requesting amendments to their existing 333 exemption as listed and

described belo w. The purpose for the amendments is to be able to offer the services as listed in

the existing 333 exemption. Each amendment will serve to increase the functionality and

usefulness of UASs and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working

environments in the industries in which they are deployed.

1. Additional Aircraft

8A Pilot Services, LLC woul d like to add additional UASs to the exis ting exemption. The new

air craft are quadrotors of very similar design and functionality to the DJI I nspire 1, which was

approved in the original exemption.

a. Manufacturer: DJI

Model No.: Phantom 2

Model No.: Phantom 3

Model No.: Inspire 1 Pro

b. Manufacturer: Yuneec

Model No.: T yphoon Q500 4K

The DJI quadcopters and the Typhoon Q500 4K listed above meet all the weight, speed and

other criteria spelled out in the 333 exemption. The pilot operating handbooks (POH) will be

emailed directly to 333exemptions@faa.gov.

2. Relief from restriction #2 for filming in closed set movie or television production

8A Pilot Services, LLC has extensive video and film production experience and would like to be

able to use UASs for such purposes as called out in the 333 exemption. It is therefore

requesting relief from restriction #2 on the 333 exemption for operation in closed set

environments for movie and television production.

8A Pilot Services ’ Motion Picture and Television Flight Operations Manual for Unmanned Aerial

Systems will be mailed directly directly to 333exemptions@faa.gov.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6455

DAMON ELLIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00209-LO-JFA)

Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Elliott, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Elliott v. Wilson, No. 1:14-cv-00209-LO-JFA 

(E.D. Va. filed Mar. 11, 2014; entered Mar. 14, 2014). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED