alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as In re D.A.S.H. , 2018-Ohio-2141.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: : CASE NO. CA2018-01-013

D.A.S.H. : D E C I S I O N 6/4/2018 :

:

APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUVENILE DIVISION Case No.15-D000105

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, OH 45036, for appellee Aaron Aldridge, 130 East Mulberry Street, Lebanon, OH 45036, for 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 Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Counsel for appellant, A.T., 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 any errors by the trial courtWarren CA2018-01-013 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 trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION BY THE**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**17 CFR 240.13a-14(a)**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Michael P. Huseby, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended May 2, 2020 of Barnes & Noble Education, Inc.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea 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. 

Date: August 31, 2020 

 
By:  /s/Michael P. Huseby 
Michael P. Huseby

*Chairman**** & Chief Executive Officer*

*Barnes & Noble Education, Inc.*
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                        10157248
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          872000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     230469
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        12981506
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          12530787
<LOANS>                                       36652816
<ALLOWANCE>                                      50050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                62647603
<DEPOSITS>                                    48086644
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             985900
<LONG-TERM>                                    2000000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8863
<OTHER-SE>                                    11566196
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                62647603
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                1993653
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               540044
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                486056
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3019753
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1528579
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1584250
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1435503
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     6263
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               18125
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1189527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 552895
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      347425
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    347425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.29
<LOANS-NON>                                       7111
<LOANS-PAST>                                    112422
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 43787
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                50050
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             50050
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 14 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 14

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 7 (legislative day, September 12), 1995

                                Received

            October 8 (legislative day, September 12), 1995

         Referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to certain regulations of 
           the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Whereas it is in the public interest to reduce the frequency of workplace 
        accidents and the human and economic costs associated with such 
        injuries;
Whereas workplace accidents involving powered industrial trucks are often the 
        result of operation by poorly trained, untrained, or unauthorized 
        operators;
Whereas Federal regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration and codified at 29 C.F.R. 1910.178 require that operators 
        of powered industrial trucks be trained and authorized;
Whereas existing regulations lack any guidelines to measure whether operators of 
        powered industrial trucks are in fact trained and authorized;
Whereas operator training programs have been demonstrated to reduce the 
        frequency and severity of workplace accidents involving powered 
        industrial trucks; and
Whereas a petition to amend existing regulations to specify the proper 
        components of a training program for operation of powered industrial 
        trucks has been pending before the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration since March 1988: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is requested to 
publish, within one year of passage of this resolution, proposed 
regulations amending the regulation published as 29 C.F.R. 1910.178 to 
specify the components of an adequate operator training program and to 
provide that only trained employees be authorized to operate powered 
industrial trucks.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### L. J. CAPPLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27227.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

■Wesley Dice,- State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*892PER CURIAM.

The offence is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in j ail and a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1996
<CASH>                                         3845000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         2389000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     255000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        18795000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          18455000
<LOANS>                                       31644000
<ALLOWANCE>                                      42000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                58394000
<DEPOSITS>                                    42392000
<SHORT-TERM>                                   1618000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             621000
<LONG-TERM>                                    1500000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9000
<OTHER-SE>                                    12254000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                58394000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 571000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               314000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 78000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                963000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              489000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              514000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           449000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     1000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               24000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 337000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 182000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      124000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    124000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.17
<LOANS-NON>                                       1000
<LOANS-PAST>                                     55000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 41000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     1000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                42000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             42000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
* The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2729

___________ John Warda, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Marty C. Anderson, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 29, 2005 Filed: August 8, 2005

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate John Warda challenges the district court’s * dismissal of Warda's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the loss of good-time credits and other sanctions following a disciplinary determination he had possessed contraband. We affirm.-2- Contrary to Warda’s argument, due process requires only the existence of “some evidence” to support the revocation of good-time credits. See Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (due process requirements satisfied if “some evidence” supports decision to revoke good-time credits). Having reviewed the district court's findings for clear error, we conclude the record supports the court’s determination the disciplinary decision was based on some evidence. SeeHayes v. Long , 72 F.3d 70, 72 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995). Among other things, the hearing officer considered an incident report describing how a cooler with Warda’s name on it and containing contraband was found under his bed during a search of his cubicle. The officer also considered a memorandum which stated an FBI special agent had interviewed Warda and Warda’s cubicle-mate, and had determined the items belonged to Warda. Warda also argues the district court should have independently evaluated the credibility of the confidential informant (CI ) whose information was considered by the hearing officer, but this argument fails because “some e viden ce” other than the CI information supports the disciplinary decision. See Hill , 472 U.S. at 455-57; Espinoza v. Peterson , 283 F.3d 949, 952 (8th Cir.) (reviewing court must examine reason for non-disclosure and reliability of CI only in cases where CI information is needed to satisfy “some evidence” standard), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 870 (2002). Given the existence of some evidence to support the disciplinary determination, Warda’s remaining arguments about application of the constructive-possession rule and certain allegedly erroneous factual determinations are meritless. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
### Interagency comments on RIN 2060-AQ89 Higgins, Cortney to: Nick Parsons 09/19/2011 02:41 PM Cc: Penny Lassiter History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.



### Hi Nick, Attached are the interagency comments on RIN 2060-AQ89. Please let me know if you have any questions about these comments.
Regards, Cortney

________________________________________________ **Cortney Higgins Policy Analyst**  **OMB/OIRA/NRE 202.395.7856**  **chiggins @**  **omb**

**. eop** 

**. gov** 

EO12866_CMAS_2060-AQ89_Reconsideration_Proposal20110614_Interagency Comments Under EOs 12866 and 13563.doc
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS (RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA) SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q/A FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,356,953               5,356,953
<SECURITIES>                                 7,074,662               7,074,662
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,345,914               5,345,914
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,214,482)             (1,214,482)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,021,824              20,021,824
<PP&E>                                       5,971,229               5,971,229
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,214,302)             (3,214,302)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,433,253              24,433,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,171,247               8,171,247
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        81,216                  81,216
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,180,790              16,180,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,433,253              24,433,253
<SALES>                                      3,609,228               6,827,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,609,228               6,827,970
<CGS>                                        2,414,829               4,530,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,414,829               4,530,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,168,716              14,435,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,831,528)            (11,798,113)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   847,497                 847,497
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,679,025)            (12,645,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,679,025)            (12,645,610)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.02)                  (1.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)                  (1.69)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000,000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           JAN-23-2000
<PERIOD-START>              JAN-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                APR-25-1999
<CASH>                               49
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                        71
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                       1,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,153
<PP&E>                              840
<DEPRECIATION>                      349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,017
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                          712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,799
<SALES>                             619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    619
<CGS>                               457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (7)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (3)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (4)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                        (4)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.05)



</TABLE>
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 21690.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1941.

Frank Morris, of Dallas, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for' the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary of a private residence, at night, punishment being assessed at eight years in the penitentiary.

The record is before the court without statement of facts or bills of exception, ■which would necessitate an affirmance of the judgment were it not for the fact that we observe that the transcript shows no notice of appeal, without which this court has no jurisdiction.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 236 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 236

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 19 (legislative day, May 16), 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On May 20, 1994, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1994 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as may be necessary 
to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```