alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Buchanan v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 2017-Ohio-2874.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

John A. Buchanan, :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

v. : No. 16AP-840 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-00041) Ohio Department of : Rehabilitation and Correction, (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)

: Defendant-Appellee.

:

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on May 18, 2017

On Brief: John A. Buchanan , pro se.

On Brief: Michael DeWine , Attorney General, and Timothy M. Miller , for appellees.

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio

TYACK, P.J

. {¶ 1} John A. Buchanan is appealing from the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio. He assigns a single error for our consideration: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT, DENYING HIM DUE PROCESS, BY DENYING HIS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING HIS IIED CLAIMS IN ITS NOV. 7, 2016 ENTRY, ABSENT THE MAGISTRATE PREPARING AND FILING A DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH OHIO CIV. R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii).

{¶ 2} Buchanan filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC") based on his claims that ODRC harmed him in "the scheduling ofNo. 16AP-840 2

his medical appointments," denying him temporary orders and taking his wheelchair. Buchanan amended the complaint which initiated the case on two occasions. {¶ 3} The trial court assigned a magistrate to help conduct the proceedings, but ultimately dismissed parts of the case without the magistrate's impact. The trial court also overruled Buchanan's attempts to obtain a default judgment. {¶ 4} The record before us indicates that portions of the lawsuit remain pending, specifically certain negligence claims. This appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal if the trial court has not journalized a final appealable order as defined in R.C. 2505.02. No such final appealable order has been journalized in this case. We, therefore, must and do dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

SADLER and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.
ZAPLANUJ, jak wykonać pracę bezpiecznie. 

ZAPEWNIJ odpowiedni sprzęt do pracy na dachu.

PRZESZKÓL wszystkich pracowników jak bezpiecznie korzystać ze sprzętu.

Przed upadkiem pracowałem w 

budownictwie przez 10 lat. Upadek 

zniszczył moje zdrowie i życie.

Pracuj bezpiecznie. Używaj odpowiedniego sprzętu.

ZAPOBIEGANIE UPADKOM

Noś szelki bezpieczeństwa i bądź zawsze przypięty

Upewnij się, że szelki są dobrze dopasowane

Korzystaj z barier lub lin ubezpieczających

Sprawdź cały sprzęt ochronny przed jego użyciem

Ogrodź lub zakryj wszystkie dziury, otwory i świetliki

 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • TTY 1-877-889-5627

www.osha.gov Amerykańskie Ministerstwo Pracy

www.osha.gov/stopfalls/

NIOSH 2012-142POL / OSHA 3545-09 2012 

UPADKOM Z DACHU MOŻNA ZAPOBIEC!

Bezpieczeństwo się opłaca. 

Upadki kosztują.

ZAPLANUJ, jak wykonać pracę bezpiecznie.

ZAPEWNIJ właściwy sprzęt. 

PRZESZKÓL wszystkich pracowników jak bezpiecznie korzystać ze sprzętu.

NIE

odłączaj liny 

ubezpieczającej

NIE

korzystaj z 

niesprawnego 

sprzętu

NIE

pracuj w pobliżu 

niezabezpiec- zonych otworów 

lub świetlików

Agencja Zdrowia i 

Bezpieczeństwa Pracy 
NIE

wspinaj się po szynach poprzecznych

NIE

stawaj na barierkach

NIЕ

ustawiaj drabiny 

na rusztowaniu

UPADKOM Z DRABINY MOŻNA ZAPOBIEC! UPADKOM Z RUSZTOWANIA MOŻNA ZAPOBIEC!

Wybierz drabinę odpowiednią do danej pracy

Zachowaj trzy punkty kontaktu

Umocuj drabinę

Zawsze ustawiaj się twarzą do drabiny

NIE

sięgaj zbyt 

daleko

NIE

stawaj na szczycie 

drabiny ani na 

ostatnim stopniu 

drabiny

NIE

stawiaj drabiny 

na nierównej 

płaszczyźnie

ZAPLANUJ, jak wykonać pracę bezpiecznie. 

ZAPEWNIJ odpowiednią drabinę i sprzęt. 

PRZESZKÓL wszystkich pracowników jak bezpiecznie korzystać ze sprzętu.

ZAPLANUJ, jak wykonać pracę bezpiecznie. 

ZAPEWNIJ odpowiednie rusztowanie i sprzęt.

PRZESZKÓL wszystkich pracowników jak bezpiecznie korzystać ze sprzętu.

Używaj rusztowań ze ściśle wypełnionymi platformami

Zapewnij odpowiedni dostęp do rusztowania

Ustaw je dokładnie w pionie i poziomie 

Zamontuj wszystkie barierki

Zapewnij stabilne podłoże

Sprawdź przed użyciem (przez kompetentną osobę)
EXHIBIT 3.1


                                    AMENDMENT

                                       to

                                     BY-LAWS

                                       of

                                  VIZACOM INC.

         WHEREAS,  on December  27, 2001,  at a special  meeting of the Board of
Directors (the "Board") of Vizacom Inc. (the "Company"),  the Board deemed it to
be in the best  interest  of the  Company to amend the By-Laws of the Company so
that the quorum  requirement  for  meetings of the  stockholders  of the Company
would be changed to  thirty-three  and  one-third  (33 1/3%)  percent from fifty
(50%) percent, and the Board unanimously voted to effectuate such amendment.

         NOW  THEREFORE,  Article II, Section 8 of the By-Laws of the Company is
hereby  amended so that the first  sentence  of such  Article  II,  Section 8 is
replaced in its entirety with the following:

         `The holders of  thirty-three  and  one-third  (33 1/3%) percent of the
stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote thereat,  present in person or
represented  by  proxy,  shall  constitute  a  quorum  at  all  meetings  of the
stockholders  for the  transaction of business  except as otherwise  provided by
statute or by the certificate of incorporation.'"
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 5, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134432 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134432 COA: 269785 Marquette CC: 04-042159-FH JEFFREY WAYNE ROEDER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the ques tion presented should be reviewed by this Court. Although the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it could consider MR E 404(b) testimony for the limited purpose of judging the believability of the testimony contrary to this Court’s explicit instruction in People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 69-70 (2000), defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudici al error where the pr osecution presented a strong case against him, and the MRE 404(b) evidence was properly admitted to show defendant’s system, plan, or scheme in committing the acts.

d1128 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 5, 2007

Clerk
AFS-10-136-E 

April 1, 2010 

Mr. William Heiss 

Flight Training Manager 

Front Range Executive Flight Training 

98 S. Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 127-131 

Lakewood, CO 80226 

Dear Mr. Heiss: 

This is in response to your October 2, 2009, letter (public Docket No. FAA-2009-0944) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Front Range Executive 

Flight Training (Front Range) for an exemption from § 61.43(a)(5) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Front Range to allow 

an applicant seeking an initial Cessna CE-500 series type rating to demonstrate single-pilot 

competency during a practical test in a CE-500 series airplane that is type-certificated only for 

a two-pilot crew. 

Section 61.43(b) states that if the FAA Flight Standardization Board report, FAA-approved 

aircraft flight manual, or aircraft type certification data sheet allows the pilot flightcrew 

complement to be either a single pilot, or a pilot and a copilot, then the applicant may 

demonstrate single-pilot proficiency or have a copilot on the practical test. Section 61.45 

states that the applicant must furnish an aircraft of the same category, class, and type. All 

Cessna Citation 500 series aircraft have a common type rating designation. There are 

15 Cessna Citation models that are included in the CE-500 type rating. Two of those models 

are approved for a crew of either one or two. Cessna Aircraft Company has issued CE-500 

series Service Bulletins (SL-500-03-01, SL560-03-01) (copy enclosed) regarding required 

flight control systems for single-pilot operations. Therefore, no regulatory relief is required to 

allow an applicant to demonstrate single-pilot proficiency during a type rating practical test in 

a Cessna CE-500 series aircraft requiring a second in command (SIC), provided a qualified 

SIC is also seated at the controls during the practical test and the aircraft is equipped in 

accordance with the appropriate Cessna Service Bulletins. Please note that demonstrating 

single-pilot proficiency in a Cessna CE-500 series aircraft requiring a SIC does not authorize 

the applicant to operate such aircraft as single-pilot only. 
2 

Therefore, the FAA deems it unnecessary to grant Front Range Executive Flight Training an 

exemption from § 61.43(a)(5) as relief is already provided under § 61.43. 

Because the relief you seek is covered under an existing rule, we will take no further action on 

your petition. Accordingly, we will close Docket No. FAA-2009-0944.

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J.A. FISCHER, S.A. DOMINGUEZ

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JARED A. FERRERA

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS (E-2), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400130

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 26 Nov 2013.

Military Judge: LtCol C.J. Thielemann, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 2d Battalion, 7th 

Marines, 1st Marine Division (REIN), FMF, MCAGCC, 

Twentynine Palms, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Capt J.A. Spalding, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CDR Boyce Crocker, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

31 July 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT 

---------------------------------------------------

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 724 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 724

   To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify that underground 
 injection does not include certain activities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 1999

  Mr. Inhofe (for himself and Mr. Sessions) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify that underground 
 injection does not include certain activities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION.

    Section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) 
is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
            ``(1) Underground injection.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `underground injection' 
                means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well 
                injection.
                    ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `underground injection' 
                does not include--
                            ``(i) the underground injection of natural 
                        gas for purposes of storage; or
                            ``(ii) the underground injection of fluids 
                        or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic 
                        fracturing operations for purposes of reservoir 
                        stimulation related to oil or gas production 
                        activities.
                    ``(C) Regulation.--The Administrator shall possess 
                the sole authority to determine whether an activity not 
                regulated as underground injection prior to October 11, 
                1995 shall be regulated under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 892

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

subpart F exemption for active financing income.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27, 1999

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. MACK, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the subpart F exemption for active financing income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR AC4 TIVE FINANCING INCOME.

5 (a) BANKING, FINANCING, OR SIMILAR BUSI6 NESSES.—Subsection (h) of section 954 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for income

8 derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or

9 similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9).
2

•S 892 IS

1 (b) INSURANCE BUSINESSES.—Subsection (a) of sec2 tion 953 of such Code (defining insurance income) is

3 amended by striking paragraph (10) and by redesignating

4 paragraph (11) as paragraph (10).

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

6 this section shall apply to taxable years of a foreign cor7 poration beginning after December 31, 1998, and to tax8 able years of United States shareholders with or within

9 which such taxable years of such foreign corporation end.

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **77 30** 

THOMAS W. CAUDLE , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. GENE M . JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the Un ited States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. ( 2 : 08

- c v - 00 6 0 4

- R B S

- T E M )

Submitted : June 17 , 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ a nd KING, Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thomas W. Caudle , Appellant Pro Se
. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General , Richmond, Virginia , f or Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Thomas W. Caudle seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable u nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a con stitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional clai ms is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caudle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We3 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would n ot aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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. 96-10861

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIX SANDOVAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CR-008-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felix Sandoval pleaded guilty to one count of possession of

heroin with the intent to distribute it. He was sentenced to 76

months’ imprisonment.

Sandoval argues that the district court erred in finding

that he committed his offense within a "protected location" as

defined by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 and 21 U.S.C. § 1860. We have

reviewed the record and Sandoval's contentions and we find no 
No. 96-10861

- 2 -

reversible error. United States v. Echevaria, 995 F.2d 562, 564

(5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                28,678
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        348,684
<ALLOWANCES>                           9,640
<INVENTORY>                           44,263
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     470,070
<PP&E>                             2,284,604
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,157,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,643,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                289,842
<BONDS>                              314,707
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              51,176
<OTHER-SE>                           807,031
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,643,250
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   3,140,226
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      2,980,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    17,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      147,388
<INCOME-TAX>                          56,187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          91,201
<EPS-BASIC>                           1.88<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                           1.85<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC
<F2>EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED
</FN>



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 175 (Monday, November 17, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10558-S10559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      CONGRATULATING WILLIAM YUAN

 Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate a 
young man who has not only achieved beyond his years but has also 
advanced the state of the art of solar power technology. William Yuan 
of Beaverton, OR, is a seventh grader at Meadow Park Middle School 
whose achievements are both jaw-dropping and important.
  Recently, William earned a $25,000 scholarship from the Davidson 
Institute and became a Davidson Fellow for his work in renewable energy 
research. William's project, ``A Highly-Efficient 3-Dimensional 
Nanotube Solar Cell for Visible and UV Light,'' featured a novel solar 
panel that enables light absorption from visible to ultraviolet light. 
The carbon nanotubes William designed can overcome the barriers of 
electron movement, doubling the light-electricity conversion 
efficiency. His optimized design provides 500 times more light 
absorption than commercially available solar cells and nine times more 
than the cutting-edge, three-dimensional solar cell.
  Given the current energy crisis, everyone must pitch in to reduce our 
dependence on oil consumption. In Congress and in the private sector, 
we are working to facilitate advancements in renewable energies. 
However, we cannot be successful without brilliant minds like 
William's.
  Winning the Davidson scholarship is far from William's only 
achievement. This year alone, William won second place at the Northwest 
Science Expo, Best Engineering Project at the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, and second place at the Oregon Chess for 
Success State Tournament. The list goes on. Last year, William also 
received a junior black belt pum certification from the World Taekwondo 
Headquarters in Seoul, Korea. He has also received a number of awards 
from various Intel Oregon competitions and First Place in Oregon in the 
Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth Talent Search in both 
quantitative and verbal sections.
  At 12 years old, William is only just getting started. He intends to 
continue his research in renewable energy and eventually select a major 
for his college study toward a Ph.D. degree. John F. Kennedy once said:

[[Page S10559]]

       Our nation's first great leaders were also our first great 
     scholars.

  I look forward to watching William progress as a scholar and a 
leader.

                          ____________________
```
First Amendment to Continental Airlines, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 4.29 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

1997 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section X of the Company’s 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, such Plan be and hereby is amended such that the penultimate
paragraph of Section IX(c) of such Plan shall read in its entirety as follows: 
 “Upon the occurrence of a Change in
Control, with respect to each recipient of an Award hereunder, (AA) all Options granted to such recipient and outstanding at such time shall immediately vest and become exercisable in full (but subject, however, in the case of Incentive Stock
Options, to the aggregate fair market value, determined as of the date the Incentive Stock Options are granted, of the stock with respect to which Incentive Stock Options are exercisable for the first time by such recipient during any calendar year
not exceeding $100,000) and, except as required by law, all restrictions on the transfer of shares acquired pursuant to such Options shall terminate and (BB) all restrictions applicable to such recipient’s Restricted Stock shall be deemed to
have been satisfied and such Restricted Stock shall vest in full.”