alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-608 (WOB)

JASON COTTERMAN PLAINTIFF

VS. ORDER

CITY OF CINCINNATI,

ET AL. DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion that 

this Court Specifically Address Issues of State Law Causes of 

Action and of Privacy Not Addressed in Original Opinion and Order,” 

brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1. (Doc. 127). Defendant 

DeBlauw filed a response in opposition to this motion. (Doc. 129).

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and concludes that 

it should be denied.

Fed. R. 62.1 is a mechanism for a federal trial court to make 

an “indicative” ruling on a pending motion for relief where the 

district court otherwise lacks jurisdiction to rule due to a 

pending appeal in the case. See generally 12 James Wm. Moore et 

al., Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 62.1.02, 62.1.10 (3d ed. 1997 & 

Supp. 2022). The most common example is when a party files a postjudgment motion, typically a Rule 60(b) motion, when an appeal is 

already pending. Id.

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-WOB-KLL Doc #: 130 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2352
“Rule 62.1 does not provide for relief itself; rather it 

provides the Court with authority to entertain a motion for relief, 

including for example, a Rule 60(b) motion.” Hickman v. Moore, 

Nos. 3:09-CV-69, 3:09-CV-102, 2011 WL 4860040, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. 

Oct. 13, 2011). See also Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 310 

F.R.D. 208, 210 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).

Here, there are no post-judgment motions pending which the 

Court is precluded from ruling on due to plaintiff’s appeal to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Doc. 125).

“Absent an underlying, predicate motion, there is no basis for 

relief under Rule 62.1.” Medgraph, 310 F.R.D. at 210.

Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and the Court being 

advised,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Motion that this Court 

Specifically Address Issues of State Law Causes of Action and of 

Privacy Not Addressed in Original Opinion and Order” (Doc. 127) 

be, and is hereby, DENIED.

This 16th day of September 2022.

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-WOB-KLL Doc #: 130 Filed: 09/16/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2353
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4396 

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not 

subject to the Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. POMEROY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse 

gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Save Our Energy Jobs 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDING AND SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that on April 2, 2007, 

8 the United States Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. 

9 Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), 

10 found that the Environmental Protection Agency has auVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:42 Dec 18, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4396.IH H4396

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4396 IH

1 thority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse 

2 gas emissions. 

3 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con4 gress that: 

5 (1) When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, 

6 it did not intend to regulate greenhouse gases under 

7 such Act. 

8 (2) The Environmental Protection Agency 

9 should not have the authority to promulgate rules to 

10 regulate greenhouse gas emissions without being 

11 provided explicit authority to do so by Congress. 

12 (3) Should the Environmental Protection Agen13 cy promulgate rules that regulate greenhouse gas 

14 emissions, such regulations will have a significant 

15 impact on nearly all aspects of the economy of the 

16 United States. Regulations that have the potential to 

17 impact such a large portion of the economy should 

18 not be left to administrative rulemaking in the ab19 sence of congressional action. 

20 (4) Comprehensive regulations to address global 

21 climate change must only be enacted— 

22 (A) at the direction of Congress; and 

23 (B) if Congress specifically intends such 

24 regulations to be implemented. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4396 IH

1 SEC. 3. GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION UNDER CLEAN AIR 

2 ACT. 

3 Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 7602(g)) is amended by adding the following at the end 

5 thereof: ‘‘The term ‘air pollutant’ shall not include carbon 

6 dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, 

7 perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.’’. 

Æ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4163 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4163

  To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude from income 
  unemployment benefits received for a continuous period exceeding 26 
                                 weeks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2009

   Mr. Baca introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to exclude from income 
  unemployment benefits received for a continuous period exceeding 26 
                                 weeks.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Feed All Struggling Americans Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 5(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2014(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (18) by striking ``and'' at the end,
            (2) in paragraph (19) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(29) unemployment benefits received for a continuous 
        period exceeding 26 weeks.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 1st day of 
the 1st month that begins more that 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall not apply with respect to certification periods that expire 
before the 1st day of the 1st month that begins more that 90 days after 
the effective date of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6429

ANTHONY DAWAIN SHAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00126-MSD-TEM)

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dawain Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dawain Shaw seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (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 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 Shaw 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### Sted Tenants Owners Corp., Respondent, v Alphonso Chumpitaz, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[774 NYS2d 718]

In an action for ejectment, the defendant appeals from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated April 8, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and (2) an amended order of the same court dated April 10, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs same motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 8, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated April 10, 2003; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order dated April 10, 2003, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, so much of the order dated April 8, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is vacated, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment, as the papers submitted in support of its motion failed to include copies of the pleadings in the action *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338 [1974]; *Lawlor v County of Nassau,*166 AD2d 692 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are academic in light of our determination or without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4365 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4365

To limit the distribution of funds for campaign-related work under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to reduce the deficit, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2009

 Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida introduced the following bill; which 
    was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To limit the distribution of funds for campaign-related work under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to reduce the deficit, 
                        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. RESTRICTIONS ON ARRA FUNDS AND CAMPAIGN-RELATED WORK.

    (a) Limitation on Use of ARRA Funds.--Any person or entity that 
received compensation for campaign-related work during the 2008 
election cycle shall not be eligible to receive, either directly or 
indirectly, any funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).
    (b) Return of ARRA Funds To Reduce the Deficit.--
            (1) Return of funds.--Any person or entity that has 
        received compensation for campaign-related work during the 2008 
        election cycle and who has received funds, either directly or 
        indirectly, from such Act shall return such funds to the 
        Secretary of the Treasury, with interest.
            (2) Deficit reduction.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
        deposit in the General Fund of the Treasury any funds received 
        under paragraph (1) and ensure that such funds so deposited are 
        dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit reduction.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00272]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11621]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Meret Oppenheim: My 
Exhibition'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Meret Oppenheim: My Exhibition'' 
at the Menil Collection, Houston, Texas; the Museum of Modern Art, New 
York, New York; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 
temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d2e383e293432336f6968641d2e293c2938733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9aabcbaadb0b6b7ebedece099aaadb8adbcf7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-00272 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1927** 

ELDER ANTONIO RAMIREZ

- MARTINEZ , Petitioner ,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : October 19, 2016 Decided: November 18, 2016

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Himedes V. Chicas, JEZIC & MOYSE, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland; Ben Winograd, IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE APPELLATE CENTER, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Matthew A. Spurlock, Of fice of Immigration Litigation , U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D

. C

. , for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Elder Antonio Ramirez

- Martinez , a native and citizen of

Guatemala , petiti ons for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. ∗
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ramirez

- Martinez’s merits hearing and all
supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does
not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012 ), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See Gomis , 571 F.3d at 359. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re Ramirez

- Martinez (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2014). We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIE D

∗ Ramirez

- Martinez does not challenge the denial of his asylum claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 3 53, 358

- 59 (4th Cir. 2009).
#### The People on the relation of Joseph Begole and another v. The Judge of the Ionia Circuit.

*Inquest: Production of iviinesses: Motion for continuance.*Notwithstanding a canse lie properly noticed for inquest under the rule and no affidavit of merits "be filed, the defendant is entitled to produce witnesses on the inquest, not, of course, to make out any substantive defense to the right of action, hut to show the correct amount due or quantum of recovery;, and he therefore has a right to move for a continuance of the cause, and the court is hound to entertain and consider such motion.

*Heard and decided April 29,*

Application for *Mandamus.*

*62Suit was brought in the Ionia circuit by Albert Yan Vleck against the relators upon the common counts with a promissory note annexed. The plea was the general issue. The cause was duly noticed for inquest under circuit court rule ninety-nine for the November term, 1814. No affidavit of merits was filed. On the first day of term the relators moved, on affidavits showing the absence of material witnesses on their behalf, for a continuance of the cause. The respondent declined and refused to entertain this motion, for-the reason that the cause had been noticed for inquest; and he thereupon called the cause out of its order on the calendar for the term, and an inquest was taken and judgment rendered for plaintiff. The relators move for *mandamus*to require the respondent to set aside and vacate, said judgment, .and to reinstate the cause and hear their motion for continuance.

*Mitchel &*Pratt, for relators, were stopped by the court.

*Marble & Webstar,*for respondent.

The Oouet

held that notwithstanding a cause be noticed for inquest under the rule, and no affidavit of merits be filed, the defendant is' entitled to produce witnesses on the ■inquest, not, of course, to make out any substantive defense to the right of action, but to show the accurate amount due or quantum of recovery; and that therefore he has a right to move for a continuance of the cause; and that the respondent erred in declining to entertain and consider the motion in said cause.

*Mandamus*granted.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00052]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 21-17]


Order of Investigation and Hearing: Ocean Network Express PTE. 
LTD. and Ocean Network Express (North America) Inc.; Possible 
Violations

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Order of Investigation and Hearing.

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

DATES: The Order of Investigation and Hearing was served December 30, 
2021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 30, 2021, the Federal Maritime 
Commission instituted an Order of Investigation and Hearing entitled 
Ocean Network Express PTD. LTD. and Ocean Network Express (North 
America), Inc. Possible Violations of 46 U.S.C. 41102(c). Acting 
pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41302(a) and 41304, and 46 CFR 502.63, that 
investigation is instituted to determine:
    Whether Ocean Network Express PTD. LTD. and Ocean Network Express 
(North America), Inc. are violating or have violated section 41102(c) 
of the Shipping Act by failing to establish, observe, and enforce just 
and reasonable regulations and practices relating to its practice of 
demanding payment of charges from Greatway Logistics Group, LLC 
(Greatway) despite Greatway not being liable for such charges.
    The Order may be viewed in its entirety at http://www.fmc.gov/21-17.
    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 41302.

William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00052 Filed 1-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
The Eonorable.Ron Jaokaon 

Executive Director 

Texae Youth council 

8900 Shoal Creek Blvd. 

Auetin, Texas 76766 

Opinion No. N-775 

Re: Whether teachers 

employed by the Texas 

Youth Council are etate 

employeee tot purpoeee of 

receiving pey for accumulated eick leave. 

Dear Hr. Jackeonx 

You have requeeted our opinion regarding whether teachers employed by the Tesae Yo'uth Council are l tate employeee 

for purpoeee oi? receiving pay for accumulated l ick leave. 

The &rent @metal Appropriationa Act, &cts 1975, 64th 

kB*r oh. ,743, Q.. 2417, provides aa followma 

A state employee who remigna, ie 

disutianed or 8eQarated from 8tate 

employment ehall be entitled to 

be paid for one half of nick leave 

'entitlement duly accrued. Art. 5, 

S 7b at 2050. 

There can be no doubt that ~this provision ie inapplicable to employee8 of local echo01 dietrictn, whose salariee 

are paid primarily from district funda. See Uuee c Prescott School District 349 S.W.2d 329 (Arkx9m Thsae 

Youth-i-r, ie a atate agency rather than a 

political et&division.. We have been advised that 44 percent 

ot the total emount 8xQended for the ealariee ot ite teachers 

ie derived tram the line item approptiiatione for education.' 

Q. 3274 
8 The Donorable Ron Jackson - page 2 (H-775) 

General Appropriations Act at 2503-2509. Another 33 percent 

is received from the federal government. These funda are 

also appropriated to the Texas Youth Council by the Legielature. General Appropriations Act, art. V, 9 19 at 2858. In 

our opinion, therefore, for purposes of the sick leave 

payment provision of the General Appropriations Act, there 

is no baeie for drawing a distinction between teaching and 

non-teaching pereonnel employed by the Texas Youth Council. 

Accordingly, we conclude that teacher8 employed by the Texan 

Youth Council are state employeeti for purposee of receiving 

pay for accumulated sick leave. 

SUMMARY 

Teachers employed by the Texaa Youth 

Council are state employees for purpoeea 

of receiving pay for accumulated sick 

leave. 

Very truly youra, 

Attorney General of Tax&8 

APPROVED: 

. 

Opinion Committee 

Q. 3215