alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO STOWE MCDANIEL, a/k/a Fatal Fatal,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00014-RJC-1; 3:09-cv-00366-

RJC)

Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Stowe McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Stowe McDaniel seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional 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 claims 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 motion 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 

McDaniel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

 

Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:17-cr-31

vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

TIMOTHY DICKERSON, :

Defendant. :

ENTRY PLACING DEFENDANT

ON PREJUDGMENT PROBATION

Upon Motion of Defendant Dickerson, and for good cause shown, Defendant is placed on

probation for a period of one (1) year pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a). The Court finds that Defendant

has not been convicted of violating a federal or state law relating to controlled substances, nor has he

been previously subject to disposition under this section.

The Court places Defendant on probation for a period of one (1) year. While on probation, the

Defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime and shall not use or possess any

illegal controlled substances. The Defendant is prohibited from possessing a firearm, ammunition,

destructive device, or dangerous weapon. Additionally, the Defendant shall must not unlawfully

possess a controlled substance and refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The

Defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of being placed on probation and at least two

periodic drug tests thereafter. The Defendant shall also comply with the Standard Conditions of

Probation required in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, as well as the

Special Condition that Defendant: (1) participate in any substance abuse testing and/or treatment

program deemed necessary by the U. S. Probation Office. The imposition of probation is entered

without entering a judgment of conviction and the judgment in this matter will be held in abeyance

pending Defendant’s completion of the probationary period.

 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:17-cr-00031-SLO Doc #: 11 Filed: 07/20/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-255

John E. Kelly 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 29) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 17 of the indictment,

and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The court will

defer the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until

the sentencing hearing.

Date: June 15, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 16

- 2215 Filed July 6, 2017

BRYAN M. SHAW , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
vs. WHITNEY R. CASE , Respondent

- Appell ee

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, John J. Haney , Judge.

Father appeals from an order denying his petition to modify a stipulated order of paternity, custody, child sup port, and medical support. AFFIRMED.

Stephen C. Humke of Newbrough Law Firm, L

. L

. P

. , Ames , for appellant. Whitney R. Case , Greenfield , pro se appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.2

MCDONALD, Judge. Bryan Shaw and Whitney Case have three children: A.J.S. (born 2004), C.M.S. (born 2006), and A.R.S. (born 2007). In the fall of 2013, following their separation, Br yan and Whitney stipulated Whitney would have physical care of the children and Bryan would exercise visitation on alternating weekends and holidays. An order was entered to that effect. In May 2016, Bryan filed a petition for modification after Whitney informed him her child from another relationship had been physically abused by the child’s father. In November 2016, the modification action proceeded to trial. Bryan sought physical care of the children and asked the court to order any visitation exercised by Whitney be supervised. The record reveals Whitney was no longer involved with the abusive paramour at th e time of trial. Bryan raised additional concerns, including one child’s late

- night

- text
- messaging activity and the fact one child had contracted head lice. The district court denied the petition to modify the physical care arrangement, concluding Bryan had failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances and had failed to establish he could provide superi or

care. On de novo review , see In re Marriage of Harris , 877 N.W.2d 434, 440 (Iowa 2016), we affirm the judgment of the district court. The sparse record is insufficient to establish the “substantial change of circumstances” our case law requires. Se e In re Marriage of Frederici , 338 N.W.2d 156, 161 (Iowa 1983). Although Bryan took reasonable action following Whitney’s report of child abuse in her home, the record shows the parties’ children were not present at the time of the abuse and suffered no h arm from the abuse. The record further shows3

Whitney is no longer in a relationship with the abusive paramour

. The concern, although legitimate at the time, is not ongoing. See id. at 158 (“The changed circumstances . . . must be more or less permanent, not temporary.”)

. Like the district court, we conclude head lice and frequent late

- night texting are not material changes in circumstances sufficie nt to transfer care to Bryan. See id. (requiring “material[]” change in circumstances). We affirm the o rder of the district court without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1) (a), (d), (e)

. AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

MICHELLE WAGNER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-417 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

 This social security case is presently before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion 

to Remand. (Doc. #9). The parties stipulate and petition this Court to order remand of 

this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) and to enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. 

Upon remand, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative Law 

Judge’s decision. The Commissioner will conduct further proceedings and develop the 

administrative record as necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled within the 

meaning of the Social Security Act, including offering Plaintiff a new hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge, and then issue a new decision. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. #9) is ACCEPTED; 
2

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58; 

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further 

consideration consistent with this Decision and Entry and the 

parties’ stipulation; and 

4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 22, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY. 

Defendant.

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No.: 1:18-CV-00008 

Judge: Michael A. Barrett

JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 The above-referenced matter having been fully compromised and settled, Plaintiff, Great 

American Insurance Company, and Defendant, Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, 

hereby stipulate and agree, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), to the 

voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims in this matter, consistent with the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties, with each party to bear its own costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

Date: July 24, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Rachael A. Rowe /s/ David P. Kamp (Per 7/24/18 Email Approval) 

Rachael A. Rowe (OH 0066823) David P. Kamp (OH 0020665) 

Darcy A. Watt (OH 0092777) Jean Geoppinger McCoy (OH 0046881) 

KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL WHITE, GETGY &MEYER CO., L.P.A. 

One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 1700 Fourth & Vine Tower 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 One West Fourth Street 

Tel: (513) 579-6486 Cincinnati, OH 45202 

Fax: (513) 579-6457 (513) 241-3685 

E-mail: rrowe@kmklaw.com dkamp@wgmlpa.com

E-mail: dwatt@kmklaw.com jmccoy@wgmlpa.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff, Great Counsel for Defendant, Farmers Alliance 

American Insurance Company Mutual Insurance Company 

Case: 1:18-cv-00008-MRB Doc #: 9 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 43
 - 2 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal 

With Prejudice was filed with the Court utilizing the CM/ECF system, which electronically 

sends notice to all parties of record, including counsel for Defendant: David P. Kamp and 

Jean Geoppinger McCoy, 1700 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45202, this 24th day of July, 2018. 

 /s/ Rachael A. Rowe 

 Rachael A. Rowe (OH 0066823) 

 

8545037.1

Case: 1:18-cv-00008-MRB Doc #: 9 Filed: 07/24/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 44
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 2, 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                  893
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        17,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          12,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     30,937
<PP&E>                                               21,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       63,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               573,773
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              5,996
<OTHER-SE>                                         (516,377)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         63,392
<SALES>                                              30,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     30,725
<CGS>                                                12,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        12,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    124,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (108,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (108,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (108,691)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.002)




</TABLE>
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

’ the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

’ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

’ other:

.

This action was (check one):

’ tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

’ tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

’ decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

10/22/2019

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-SDM-CMV Doc #: 67 Filed: 10/22/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 3369
EXHIBIT
      32.2





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 of Quintek Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Andrew Haag, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Quintek Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Quintek Technologies, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Date:
                November 15, 2006
            By:*/s/ ANDREW HAAG*Andrew
                HaagChief
                Financial Officer