alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
SHAWN PALMORE, : Case No. 1:17-cv-139
Plaintiff, i

Judge Timothy S. Black

vs.
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DAVID DUNLAP, et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 14) and
TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on March 1, 2018, submitted a
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P). 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon considering the foregoing, the Court does determine

that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety.

Accordingly:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED;

2, This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);


3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken
in good faith, and accordingly, Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma
pauperis; and

4. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: bul Vimikin > Chik

Timothy S.
United States District Judge
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.1


 


First Amendment
of the 
Credit Facility Agreement
Regarding an Umbrella Credit Facility in the amount of 
EUR 30,000,000.00
dated August 07, 2014








IPG Laser GmbH
Siemensstrasse 7
57299 Burbach
(the "Borrower")






and










Deutsche Bank AG
Filiale Deutschlandgeschäft
An den Dominikanern 11 - 27
50668 Cologne
(the "Bank")








enter into the 1st Amendment of the Credit Facility Agreement (the „Credit Facility Agreement“) pursuant to which the Bank makes available a revolving umbrella credit facility to the Borrower (the “Umbrella-Credit Facility”) on the basis of the Bank’s General Business Conditions (Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen):













The § 2 UMBRELLA-CREDIT FACILITY subpara (1) Aggregate Facility Amount of the Credit Facility Agreement will be amended and restated as follows:


§ 2 - UMBRELLA-CREDIT FACILITY:
		
	(1)
	Aggregate Facility Amount


The Bank makes available to the Borrower a credit facility in the amount of up to
Euro 30,000,000.00 (in words: Euro thirty million) („Aggregate Facility Amount“).
The Aggregate Facility Amount is divided into the following facilities: 
		
	(a)
	Facility 1: revolving cash credit facility in the amount of up to Euro 19,000,000.00


		
	(b)
	(in words: Euro nineteen million) (“Facility 1”).


		
	(c)
	Facility 2: revolving guarantee facility in the amount of up to Euro 11,000,000.00


		
	(d)
	(in words: Euro eleven million) (“Facility 2”).


Facility 1 and Facility 2 together named as “Facilities”.


All other terms and conditions of the Credit Facility Agreement remain unaffected by this amendment. Any Amendment to this Credit Facility Agreement is required to be made in writing.
This 1st Amendment is an integral part of the Credit Facility Agreement and will be referred to as the Credit Facility Agreement. This Credit Facility Agreement will be cited under the date first above written.
	
			
	Deutsche Bank AG
	 
	 

	Filiale Deutschlandgeschäft
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Cologne, October 1st, 2015
	 
	/s/ Dietmar Amend /s/ Joachim Gartz

	Place, Date
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	IPG Laser GmbH
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Burbach, October 1, 2015
	 
	/s/ Eugene Scherbakov

	Place, Date
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Noted and agreed:

	 
	 
	 

	IPG Photonics Corporation
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Oxford, MA, October 1, 2015
	 
	/s/ Timothy P.V. Mammen

	Place, Date
#### Ken TAYLOR, Collector, and B. A. McINTOSH, Assessor v. Roy and Mary FINCH

85-199

701 S.W.2d 377

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 13, 1986

*Henry & Duckett,*by: *Richard L. Lawrence,*for appellants.

*51
      *Roy Finch,*for appellees.

David Newbern, Justice.

This is a property tax case. The appellees purchased real property from a school district. Because it belonged to the school district, the property was exempt from *ad valorem*taxation at the time of the purchase. Ark. Const, art. 16, § 5(b). The appellants sought to assess and tax the property to the appellees from the date they purchased it. The appellees objected to assessment being made prior to the year following their purchase of the property because Ark. Stat. Ann. § 84-436 (Repl. 1980), in part, states:

> All lands that shall have been purchased from owners the property of whom or which was by law exempt;. . . subsequent to January 1st of any year shall be subject to assessment and taxation for the year immediately following such purchase ....

The appellants claim the statute violates Ark. Const, art. 16, § 6, which says: “All laws exempting property from taxation other than as provided in this Constitution shall be void.” We agree with the chancellor that the statute requiring assessment and taxation at the beginning of the year following the purchase is an administrative directive which need not be construed as an exemption of property from taxation in violation of the constitution.

While we understand the appellants’ argument that the statute creates an exemption, we find it equally reasonable to construe the statute as one providing, as an administrative directive, a time for assessment and taxation of property rather than a declaration of immunity or exemption from taxation.

Every act of the Arkansas General Assembly carries a strong presumption of constitutionality. *Pogue*v. *Cooper,*284 Ark. 105, 679 S.W.2d 207 (1984); *Gay*v. *Rabon,*280 Ark. 5, 652 S.W.2d 836 (1983). If it is possible for us to construe a statute so as to meet the test of constitutionality, we will do so. *Phillips*v. *Giddings,*278 Ark. 368, 646 S.W.2d 1 (1983); *Heber Springs School District*v. *West Side School District,*269 Ark. 148, 599 S.W.2d 371 (1980); *Davis*v. *Cox,*268 Ark. 78, 593 S.W.2d 180 (1980).

Affirmed.

*52Purtle, J., not participating.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL A. FISHER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-206

v. CHEIF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers

CHAPLIN EMMANUAL
SAMUTHRAM, et al.,

Defendants.
ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation issued
by the Magistrate Judge on September 12, 2017. (ECF No. 13.) The time for filing objections
has passed, and no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore,
the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth in the Report
and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw the claims against Defendant Emmanual
Samuthram (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant Samuthram are

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Id -W- 2019 JV

DATE Pinna SARGUS, JR.
CHIEF U STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dan Jaffe, University of Washington

February 25, 2016

Comments on US Background

(5 pages)
Comments on US Background 

Dan Jaffe, University of Washington

1. USB estimated from models and there are significant biases and uncerta

low in Western US) based on comparisons with 2007 data. There is stro

that USB has changed over the past decade (Cooper et al 2012; Gratz et 

Recommendation: The EPA should consider updating the USB analysis and e

models with not only

O

3 observations from AQS and CASTNET, but also high 

research observations of

O

3, such as vertical profiles ,and detailed chemical 

from high elevation research sites such as the Mt.Bachelor Observatory and Observatory in Colorado.

2. Wildfires are

a significant contributor to PM and

O

3, especially in the we

the prevalence of wildfires appears to be increasing. However their cont

is highly variable and not easy to discern with models (Jaffe et al 2008; 2

Recommendation: The EPA should consider conducting research to underst

formation from wildfires, as well as the health impacts This is especially imurban areas that are impacted by smoke.3. The exceptional event rule remains

a complex process for states to navig

have been given very tight timelines for making exceptional event design

Recommendation: The EPA should continue to work with states to simplify 

event process. The EPA should continue to provide tools, such as those on tsite, but these must be current and consistent with the regulatory deadline
Mt. Bachelor, Oregon, (MBO) 2.8 km 

 The only high elevation/free trop research site on west coa Continuous observations of CO, O

3, aerosols and Hg since 

 Frequent detection of Asian pollution and biomass burning  More than 2 dozen papers since 2004 on O

3, PM. Hg, LRT, w

 Key goal: Identify importance of global sources on US air 

95th percentile50th percentile

5th percentile
2015 Fires in Washington State

Plot from AIRNOWTECH

Models tend to

over‐predict O3

near the sourceand under‐predict

at distance
Eularian modeling vs Statistical mod

Eularian modeling: Gridded emissions, meteorology, solar fluxes (J values). Use known photochemistry and transport to model mixing ratios. For wildfires significant challenges with emissions, plume rise, aer

chemistry, which can be very different from typical urban photoch

 Modeled concentrations may differ significantly from observations 

quantitative attribution difficult.

Statistical modeling: Examines the relationship between the observed mixing ratios and  Possible factors to include are temp, wind speed, RH, solar flux, et

 Outliers (high residuals) represent an additional O

3 source and are 

further investigation. 

O

3 = A*temp + B*winds + C*DOY... + residu

(Jaffe et al 2004; 2013; Camalier et al 2007; CARB 2EPA 2015)
AirNow MetData

This is an excellent set of tools that can support smodeling and exceptional event documentation. needs to be kept current.
32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB  Reliant Home Warranty
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Kevin
Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herby certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

By: /s/ Kevin Hamilton
-------------------------------------
Kevin Hamilton
Chief Executive Officer

 April 12, 2005

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001002813

<NAME>                        Dignity Partners, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         11,212,110
<SECURITIES>                                    3,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,181,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                    52,766,342  <F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  784,508
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,944,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,584,003
<BONDS>                                        41,218,205  <F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           42,918
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,099,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   68,944,473
<SALES>                                         5,479,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,584,370
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,233,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               10,079,777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,983,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,712,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      525,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,187,077)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   487,600
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,699,477)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (2.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES ASSETS HELD FOR SALE AND PURCHASED LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.
<F2> REPRESENTS LONG TERM BORROWINGS OF THE COMPANY.
</FN>



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Anton J. Drescher, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Video Interactive Corp;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entitles, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of the date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

---



b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





By: /s/ Anton J. Drescher

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

Name: Anton J. Drescher

Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  November 14, 2008
Case: 3:17-cv-00286-WHR-SLO Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/06/17 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 37
Case: 3:17-cv-00286-WHR-SLO Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/06/17 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 38
Case: 3:17-cv-00286-WHR-SLO Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/06/17 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 39
Case: 3:17-cv-00286-WHR-SLO Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/06/17 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 40
Case: 3:17-cv-00286-WHR-SLO Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/06/17 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 41
Case: 3:17-cv-00286-WHR-SLO Doc #: 8 Filed: 10/06/17 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 42
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JANE ROE, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:17-cv-945 

: 

v. : Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

: 

JAVAUNE ADAMS-GASTON, et al., : Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

: 

Defendants. : 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Discovery 

Order, the Court finds the motion well- taken and it is hereby GRANTED. In keeping with the 

discovery schedule set forth in this Court’s Order of November 16, 2017 (ECF # 20), Defendants 

shall produce the following documents during the written discovery phase: 

1. The OSU Office of Student Conduct files for the two student conduct cases that are the

subject of this lawsuit.

2. The OSU Office of Student Conduct Hearing Packets for the two student conduct cases

that are the subject of this lawsuit.

3. The transcripts of the two Student Conduct Hearings that are the subject of this lawsuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

____________________________________ 

&+(/6(<09$6&85$

UNITED STATES 0$*,675$7( COURT 

 /s Chelsey M. Vascura

Case: 2:17-cv-00945-EAS-CMV Doc #: 22 Filed: 11/22/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 141
Exhibit 99.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of RDC  International,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Harkola,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


                                                     /s/ John Harkola
                                                     John Harkola
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     February 19, 2003
# Euroopa Liidu C 436/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 436 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 58. köide24. detsember 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 436

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

58. köide24. detsember 2015

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa ParlamentNõukogu |
| 2015/C 436/01 | Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. detsembri 2015. aasta määrusele (EL, Euratom) 2015/2422 (millega muudetakse protokolli nr 3 Euroopa Liidu Kohtu põhikirja kohta) lisatav Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu avaldus | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa ParlamentNõukogu

2015/C 436/01

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. detsembri 2015. aasta määrusele (EL, Euratom) 2015/2422 (millega muudetakse protokolli nr 3 Euroopa Liidu Kohtu põhikirja kohta) lisatav Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu avaldus

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Parlament Nõukogu

| 24.12.2015 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 436/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2015

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 436/1

---

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. detsembri 2015. aasta määrusele (EL, Euratom) 2015/2422 (millega muudetakse protokolli nr 3 Euroopa Liidu Kohtu põhikirja kohta) lisatav Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu avaldus (1)

(2015/C 436/01)

Reformiprotsessi lõpuks koosneb Üldkohus kahest kohtunikust igast liikmesriigist. Naiste ja meeste võrdõiguslikkuse saavutamiseks, mis on Euroopa Liidu eesmärk vastavalt ELi lepingu artiklile 3, peaksid liikmesriikide valitsused Üldkohtu kohtunike kandidaatide nimetamisel kooskõlas ELi toimimise lepingu artikliga 254 tagama võimalikult suurel määral naiste ja meeste võrdse esindatuse.

---

(1)  ELT L 341, 24.12.2015, lk 14.

---
Exhibit
16.1
 
 Caturano
and Company
 
 
 
 July 30,
2010
 
 Securities
and Exchange Commission
 100 F
Street, N.E.
 Washington,
D.C. 20549-7561
 
 Commissioners:
 
 We have
read Item 5 of Form 10-Q of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. dated July 30, 2010,
which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 30, 2010 and are in agreement with the statements concerning our Firm in
those paragraphs.
 
 We have
no basis to agree or disagree with the other statements
therein.
 
 Very
truly yours,
  
 /s/
Caturano and Company, Inc.
 Boston,
Massachusetts
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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

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

 October 28, 2013

p1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147346

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147346

COA: 315264

Barry CC: 03-100230-FH

DEANDREA SHAWN FREEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2013 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).