alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Gotshall, 2016-Ohio-7923.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2016-P-0052

 - vs - : 

CHRIS H. GOTSHALL, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2014 CR 00773. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina Reilly, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 

South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Chris H. Gotshall, pro se, PID: A672-604, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 8000, 

501 Thompson Road, Conneaut, OH 44030 (Defendant-Appellant). 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J. 

{¶1} On August 16, 2016, appellant, Chris H. Gotshall, pro se, filed a Motion for 

Leave to File a Delayed Appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A). No notice of appeal was filed with the 

trial court, and no judgment entry for which appellant is appealing was provided. 

{¶2} Appellant references in his motion a previous appeal of his conviction and 

sentence in State of Ohio v. Chris H. Gotshall, 11th Dist. No. 2015-P-0057, which was decided 

by this court on May 23, 2016. In particular, the motion appears to be setting forth an 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim from appellant’s prior appeal. He also requests 
2

in the motion that counsel be appointed and an evidentiary hearing so that he can present new 

evidence to prove that his conviction “was a travesty to our due process and due diligence under 

the laws of the great land.” 

{¶3} App.R. 5(A) provides in part: 

{¶4} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the 

filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the 

court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: 

{¶5} “(a) Criminal proceedings; 

{¶6} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and 

{¶7} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. 

{¶8} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall 

set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. Concurrently 

with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of 

appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the 

court of appeals. * * *.” 

{¶9} It appears that appellant is attempting to utilize App.R. 5(A) to reopen his 

previous appeal and have an evidentiary hearing to present new evidence. Neither of the 

foregoing can be accomplished through an App.R. 5(A) motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. 

{¶10} Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a 

delayed appeal is hereby overruled. 
3

{¶11} Appeal dismissed. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J., 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., 

concur.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2837 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to clarify rules relating to drug 

discounts for covered entities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to clarify rules 

relating to drug discounts for covered entities. 

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 ‘‘340B Accountability 

5 Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DRUG DISCOUNTS AND AUDITS FOR COVERED ENTI7 TIES. 

8 Section 340B(a)(5)(C) of the Public Health Service 

9 Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(5)(C)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2837 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘A covered entity shall permit’’ 

2 and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(i) DUPLICATE DISCOUNTS AND

4 DRUG RESALE.—A covered entity shall per5 mit’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(i) USE OF SAVINGS.—A covered en8 tity shall permit the Secretary to audit, at 

9 the Secretary’s expense, the records of the 

10 entity to determine how net income from 

11 purchases under this section are used by 

12 the covered entity. 

13 ‘‘(ii) RECORDS RETENTION.—A cov14 ered entity shall retain such records and 

15 provide such records and reports as deter16 mined necessary by the Secretary for car17 rying out this subparagraph.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          LASERLOCK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                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 on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2005 of LaserLock Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norman
Gardner, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and principal
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,
based on my knowledge:

      (1) 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. Section 78m(a) or
      Section 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.





May __,  2005
                           /s/ NORMAN GARDNER
                           ------------------
                           Norman Gardner
                           President and CEO
                           (Principal executive officer and principal financial
                            officer)



 Explanatory            Note: The same individual serves as Chief Executive
                        Officer (principal executive officer) and principal
                        financial officer. Accordingly, there are no other
                        individuals who are "other certifying officers" referred
                        to in this certification.
# C_2016283EN.01000101.xml

| 5.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8090 — Tencent Holdings Limited/Supercell OY)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 283/01)

On 20 July 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8090. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8090. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015275EN.01000101.xml

| 20.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 August 2015

(2015/C 275/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1041 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,31 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4633 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70490 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4604 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0755 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1680 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,82 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1731 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4331 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2243 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5026 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4431 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5594 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6789 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5505 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,79 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2438 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0614 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5500 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 283,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5290 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,138 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,5580 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,300 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8404 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1282 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,0687 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1041

JPY

Japanese yen

137,31

DKK

Danish krone

7,4633

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70490

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4604

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0755

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1680

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,82

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1731

RON

Romanian leu

4,4331

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2243

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5026

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4431

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5594

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6789

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5505

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,79

ZAR

South African rand

14,2438

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0614

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5500

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 283,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5290

PHP

Philippine peso

51,138

RUB

Russian rouble

72,5580

THB

Thai baht

39,300

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8404

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1282

INR

Indian rupee

72,0687

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 Independent Auditors on Report of Financial Statement Schedule




---



##### 



Corel
    Corporation
    Schedule II  Valuation and Qualifying
    Accounts
    (in thousands of USD)
  Balance at


Additions Charged


Deductions,


Balance atBeginning of


to Expenses


Returns, and


End ofPeriod


or Revenue


Writeoffs


PeriodAllowance for Doubtful AccountsYear ended November 30, 2007


1,003



401



38



1,366Year ended November 20, 2006


1,117



198



312



1,003Year ended November 30, 2005


1,033



528



444



1,117Promotional rebatesYear ended November 30, 2007


2,803



10,664



12,752



715Year ended November 30, 2006


1,048



11,124



9,370



2,803Year ended November 30, 2005


1,614



5,282



5,848



1,048Allowance for Sales ReturnsYear ended November 30, 2007


8,024



10,071



11,692



6,403Year ended November 30, 2006


6,900



11,919



10,795



8,024Year ended November 30, 2005


10,492



8,316



11,908



6,900
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45053

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JAVAR D. BARNER ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: June 28, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Steven Hippler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for accepting the earnings of a prostitute, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anders on , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Javar D. Barner pleaded guilty to accepting the earnings of a prostitute, felony, Idaho
Code §§ 18

- 5606,

- 5613. The district court imposed a unified seven

- year sentence, with two
years determinate. Barner appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2 the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sen tence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Barner ’s judgment of conviction and sen tence are affirmed.
#### Jurgens vs. Cotton.

Where a part only of the mortgage debt is due and the mortgaged premises *cm-*woibe sold in parcels, the judgment should not be absolute for the sale of the property for the whole sum due and to become due, but should provide that proceedings be stayed upon the payment before a sale, of the amount actually *(hue*upon the mortgage, with interest and costs. *Sows vs. English,,*6 Wis., 262.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Milwaukee*County.

*Coon, Hollister & Cotton,*for appellants.

*Brown*& *Ogden,*for respondents.

March 12.

*By the Court,*

Cole, <7.

This case presents precisely the *375same question of practice as was involved in the case *Howe vs. English,*6 Wis., 262. A part only of tbe gage debt was due, and tbe mortgaged property was so circumstanced tbat it could not be sold in parcels. Tbe judgment did not provide tbat if, previous to a sale under it, tbe mortgagor should pay tbe amount actually due upon tbe mortgage, witb interest and costs, tben tbe proceedings should be stayed, but was for an absolute sale of tbe property, and tbat tbe respondent be paid tbe whole sum due and to become due. In *Howe vs.*English, this form of a judgment or decree was held to be erroneous. It is suggested tbat this case was not well considered, and tbat such a clause in a judgment is entirely unnecessary and merely embodies a provision of tbe statute. However this may be, tbe case of *Howe vs. English*has been followed in several subsequent cases, and we are not disposed to overrule it now. *Wood vs.*Trash, 7 Wis., 566; *Sauer vs.*Steinbauer, 10 Wis., 370.

Tbe judgment of tbe circuit court is reversed, and tbe cause remanded to tbe circuit court to enter a judgment in conformity to this opinion.
# C_2016171EN.01000101.xml

| 12.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7979 — Gilde/Royal Reesink)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 171/01)

On 29 April 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7979. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7979. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**     Ryder Scott Company, L.P. hereby consents to the use of its name and the information from itsreports regarding estimated quantities of proved reserves, the future net revenues from thosereserves and their present value for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 in MarinerEnergy, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and to theincorporation by reference thereof into Mariner Energy, Inc.’s previously filed RegistrationStatements (Nos. 333-132152 and 333-132800) on Form S-8.**RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.**Houston, Texas
Rockingham

No. 83-477

#### Michael J. Mattleman v. Marlene S. Bandler

July 3, 1984

*Joseph L. Hamilton,*of Salem, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

*Soule, Leslie, Bronstein & Zelin,*of Salem *(Barbara F. Loughman*on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

*205Memorandum Opinion

This is the second time this interstate child custody case has come before the court. *See Mattleman v. Bandler,*123 N.H. 368, 461 A.2d 561 (1983). In our prior decision, we concluded that the Master *(.Douglas R. Gray,*Esq.) and the superior court erred in asserting jurisdiction, upon the request of the plaintiff, and in denying summary enforcement of a Maryland custody decree. Further, we vacated the trial court’s order granting temporary custody to the plaintiff and remanded the case to the superior court “for the limited purpose of determination and assessment of necessary travel and other expenses, including attorney’s fees, against the plaintiff, pursuant to RSA 458-A.T5, II (Supp. 1979).” *Id.*at 375, 461 A.2d at 565.

Upon remand, the same master failed to “determine and assess” attorney’s fees and expenses against the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Disposition of the present appeal requires that we address only the issue of whether the language of our earlier opinion required the superior court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to the defendant. We believe that our earlier opinion clearly required that.

Counsel for the plaintiff having conceded at oral argument that the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses submitted to the superior court by the defendant is reasonable, it is ordered that the plaintiff shall reimburse the defendant for attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,777.00 and for $623.60 in expenses.

*Reversed.*
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.5

                    DESCRIPTION OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

         Home City Federal Savings Bank of Springfield ("Home City") has adopted
a deferred compensation plan covering four of its directors, Messrs. Glenn W.
Collier, John D. Conroy, James Foreman and Terry A. Hoppes. The plan is not
evidenced by a formal plan document but is reflected in minutes of the Board of
Directors and individual agreements with each of the covered directors. The plan
and agreement permit the directors to defer the receipt of their directors' fees
until the earlier of age 72 or termination of service with Home City. On each
anniversary of the date of the agreement, each individual's account under the
plan is credited with interest at an annual rate, compounded monthly, at the
rate determined by the Board of Directors of Home City. There is no trust fund;
the accounts are merely accounting entries, and the directors are general
unsecured creditors of Home City for the payment of benefits under the
agreements. The rate of interest for the year 2003 was 3%.

         Payments will be made in equal monthly installments over 120 months,
and credit on the remaining account balance will continue to accrue over such
payment period. Payments may be made earlier due to disability, a change in
control of Home City or an unforeseeable financial emergency. If a director dies
while in the service of Home City, his distribution will be the greater of the
balance of the director's account or the proceeds from life insurance Home City
has purchased on the director's life.

                                       78
----

----

|                                         |                   |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Name                                         | Jurisdiction           |
|                                         |                   |
| Subsidiaries of Top image systems Ltd.       |
| TIS America Inc.                             | USA - Delaware         |
| Top Image Systems UK limited                 | United Kingdom         |
| Top Image Systems Japan Ltd.                 | Japan                  |
| Asiasoft Global Pte. Ltd.                    | Singapore              |
|                                         |                   |
| Subsidiaries of Top Image Systems UK limited |                   |
| TIS Deutschland GMBH                         | Germany                |
| Top Image Systems (2007) UK Ltd              | United Kingdom         |
|                                         |                   |
| Subsidiaries of Asiasoft Global Pte. Ltd.    |
| Asiasoft (S) Pte Ltd.                        | Singapore              |
| ACME Solution Ltd.                           | Hong Kong              |
| Asiasoft Systems China Ltd                   | British Virgin Islands |
| Asiasoft Solution Hong Kong Ltd.             | Hong Kong              |
| Asiasoft Solution Guangzhou Ltd              | China                  |
|                                         |                   |
| Subsidiaries of Asiasoft Systems China       |
|                                         |                   |
| Asiasoft Shanghai Co. Ltd                    | China                  |

----

----
#### Moss *against*Moore.

A *one horse waggon*with a spring seat pannelled sides, used only for the carriage of person is a *pleasure carriage*within meaning of the eleventh section of the act establishing the *Seneca TurnpikeRoad. Company, (K.*i{R.ed.L.412. ch.'78.) and ¡s' hable t0 pay

IN ERROR, on *certiorari,*to a Justice’s Court*.*

*Moore*brought an action against Moss, for the penalty for exacting excessive toll, imposéd by the act to establish a turnpike road company, &c. called the *Senecp Turnpike Road C’ompany,*passed *April*1st, 1800, (2 *K.*& *R ed. L.*412. 423. sess. 23. ch. 78. s. II.) The *eleventh*section of the ac*> 'n fixing the rates of toll, says, that “ every waggon wi{h *¿w0*/¿orses,” shall pay *twelve and an half cents:*every *1 * * * J*“ *one horse cart,'” six cents:*every cnair or pleasure car- . ’. *7 J*r riage with one horse,” *twelve andan half cents,*lhe plam-tiff, with another person, was passing on the road in a *one /wrse wagg0n^*made with a spring seat and pannelled sides, *129and which was not used for farming purposes, or for carrying goods. The act makes no mention of a *one horse wag-gon.*There was a verdict for the plaintiff below, for the penalty of *Jive dollars,*on which the justice gave judgment, with costs.

*Per Curiam.*

We are clearly of opinion, that the judgment in this case was wrong. The one horse waggon in which the plaintiff was riding, was a “ pleasure carriage,’5 within the meaning of the act. If it was not, it was not liable to pay any toll; for it was not a “ one horse cart.5’ The judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.