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

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Plaintiff, 

-vs- Case No. 3:18 CR 6 

JAMES DAKIN 

Defendant. 

 

ENTRY AND ORDER 

___ 

 This matter comes before the Court pursuant to a Motion for Compassionate Release (Doc. 

24) filed on July 8, 2020. Counsel was appointed to represent the Defendant on August 17, 2020. 

It is therefore the ORDER of this Court that Defendant’s time to file a reply to the Government’s 

Response (Doc. 25) to Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release is extended to September 

15, 2020. 

August 27, 2020 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 _____________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 3:18-cr-00006-TMR Doc #: 27 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 95
Exhibit 12

Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(in thousands)                                                                     Year Ended September 30,
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2001        2002       2003        2004         2005
                                                                 ------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                  <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Fixed Charges Computation
     Interest expensed and capitalized                               $    145    $    417    $ 12,060    $ 13,857    $ 49,042
     Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses
       related to indebtedness                                             79         136       3,857       6,031      10,634
     Reasonable approximation of interest within rental expense            20          72       1,139       1,462       2,433
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges                                                       244         625      17,056      21,350      62,109

Preferred equity dividends                                                113           -           -           -           -
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges and Preferred Equity Dividends                   $    357    $    625    $ 17,056    $ 21,350    $ 62,109
                                                                 =============================================================


Earnings Computation
Pre-tax income from continuing operations before adjustment
  for minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries or income
  or loss from equity investees                                      $ 14,468    $ 40,236    $ 60,081    $105,107    $163,808
Plus
     Fixed charges                                                        357         625      17,056      21,350      62,109
Minus
     Interest capitalized                                                   -           -         230         435         464
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------
Total Earnings                                                       $ 14,825    $ 40,861    $ 76,907    $126,022    $225,453
                                                                 =============================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and
  Preferred Stock Dividends                                             41.53       65. 38       4.51        5.90        3.63
</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

 

A.P. Woodson Company – District of Columbia 

Columbia Petroleum Transportation, LLC - Delaware 

Marex Corporation -Maryland 

Maxwhale Corp. - Minnesota 

Meenan Holdings of NewYork, Inc. – New York 

Meenan Oil Co., Inc. - Delaware 

Meenan Oil Co., L.P. - Delaware 

Ortep of Pennsylvania, Inc. - Pennsylvania 

Petro Holdings, Inc. - Minnesota 

Petro Plumbing Corporation – New Jersey 

Petro, Inc. - Delaware 

Petroleum Heat and Power Co., Inc. - Minnesota

RegionOil Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Co., Inc. – New Jersey 

Richland Partners, LLC - Pennsylvania 

Star Gas Finance Company - Delaware 

Star Gas Propane, L.P. - Delaware 

Star/Petro, Inc. - Minnesota 

Stellar Propane Service Corp. – New York 

TG&E Service Company, Inc.- Florida
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Ayinde Khamisi,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:18cv113

State of Ohio, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on March 1, 2018 (Doc. 2). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections 

to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 

F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court notes, however, that though such notice was 

served upon Petitioner (Doc. 2), it was returned to the Court due to Petitioner=s failure to 

apprise the Court of his change of address (Doc. 3). By failing to keep the Court

apprised of his current address, Petitioner demonstrates a lack of prosecution of his

action. See, e.g., Theede v. United States Department of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1265

(10th Cir. 1999)(Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation

due to delay resulting from party=s failure to bring to the Court=s attention a change in

address constitutes failure to object in a timely manner. Because the Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 2) was mailed to the last known address, it was properly served, 

and party waived right to appellate review). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 
2

(6th Cir. 1991)(A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the 

prosecution of his cause of action); Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at 

*1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (A pro se litigant has a duty to supply the court with notice of any 

and all changes in his address). Accordingly, no objections to the Magistrate Judge=s 

Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) of the 

Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The Petition (Doc. 1) of Petitioner is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling consistent with the recommendation by the 

Magistrate Judge.

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would not 

be taken in good faith and would be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 20, 2021.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: January 13, 2022.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-00920 Filed 1-13-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
One-time incremental retainer to Chairman.



 Exhibit 10.6 

On April 2, 2010, the Board of Directors of Novell, Inc., upon the recommendation of its Compensation Committee, approved a one-time $50,000
incremental Board retainer payment to the Chairman of the Board, in recognition of his significant involvement and increased work effort and time commitment in relation to the Board’s current review of strategic alternatives to enhance
shareholder value.
2475 R udeloff Rd. Seguin, TX 78155 Phone 830 - 379 - 9800 Fax 210 - 855 - 8030

May 14, 2012 To Whom It May Concern: Veracity Aviation is hereby filing for an exemption to 14 CFR 11.61 - 11.101, formerly part 135.1(a)(5) Veracity Aviation is requesting the 91.147 ( Veracity Aviation ) be covered under the same FAA antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program that is administered for Veracity Aviation’s 135 operator, rather than being required to maintain a separate program for the 141 Flight School. The reason for this exemption; t here are only 3 - 4 people that fly under the 91.147. Because this is such a small department, the company does not believe having this group under a separate program warrants the additional cost and time to administer two separate programs. The program that covers the 135 operator ensures the same level of safety and meets the same requirements of the program required for the 91.147. I do not believe that having 91.147 under the same program as the 135 operator will compromise safety in any way. In additio n, we have not had any positive drug or alcohol tests in our program in the past five years (and beyond); therefore I do not believe allowing this exemption would put our program at risk. Please feel free to contact me at anytime with questions regarding this exemption request. Thank you for your time. Regards, Mary Lewis Office Manager/Drug

- Alcohol Program Manager/DER **Company Information:** 2475 Rudeloff Rd. Seguin, TX 78155 (830)379-9800 mary@veracityaviation.com receive
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 1:38 PM

To: Walden, Greg

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); 'nate@prenav.com'

Subject: Request for Additional Information - PreNav Inc.

Dear Mr. Walden:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No.

FAA−2015−1261).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

*             Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e., fixed wing, rotorcraft, lighter than air) for the proposed UAS

operation.  The description should include the maximum weight (including payload).  This information can be located in

the aircraft manual.

* Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1,

Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1.  If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed‐set filming from

your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.  

Please submit the additional information (non proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/8/2015.  If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 15, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, TVS REGZA Corporation, Kawasaki, JAPAN; and Hong Kong Ryosan Ltd., Kowloon, Hong Kong, HONG KONG SAR, have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, Alco Electronics Limited, Shatin, Hong Kong, HONG KONG SAR; AutoChips, Inc., Anhui, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Eastern Asia Technology (HK) Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong, HONG KONG SAR; SoJean Technology Co., Ltd., New Taipei City, TAIWAN; Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR; and Shinko Shoji Co. Ltd., Osaka, JAPAN, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 2, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 23, 2021 (86 FR 47151).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-00597 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
EXHIBIT 1 

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 100-1 Filed: 05/18/21 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 1931







EXHIBIT A 

 

Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 100-1 Filed: 05/18/21 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 1939
Case: 1:17-cv-00754-DRC Doc #: 100-1 Filed: 05/18/21 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 1940
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN MAGANA-COLIN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50333

D.C. No. 3:03-CR-00856-GT-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2009

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Juan Magana-Colin appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months imprisonment. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 

FILED

DEC 21 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
In his opening brief, Magana-Colin argued that this delay also deprived the 1

district court of jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. §

3583(i). However, he has conceded in his reply brief that there was no violation of

§ 3583(i) in his case. Section 3583(i) limits the time in which a court may revoke

supervised release after the term of supervised release has expired. Magana’s term

of supervised release had not yet expired when his revocation hearing was held, so

§ 3583(i) does not apply. 

-2-

Magana-Colin argues that the three-year delay between the issuance of a

warrant for his arrest for violation of supervised release and the commencement of

his supervised release revocation hearing was unreasonable, in violation of Due

Process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. He does not contest that his 1

revocation hearing was held within a reasonable time after he was taken into

custody for his supervised release violation. However, he argues that the

reasonable time for his hearing should be measured from the date that the warrant

for his violation issued. 

Rule 32.1 formalizes the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See

United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2008); see also id. at 1259

n.2 (“We treat proceedings for revocation of probation, parole, and supervised

release as equivalents for due process purposes . . . .”). As a matter of Due

Process, Magana-Colin’s argument is clearly foreclosed by Moody v. Daggett, 429

U.S. 78, 87 (1976) (identifying custody under a parole violation warrant, rather

than issuance of the warrant, as “the operative event” that triggers the requirement
-3-

of a timely hearing). Further, the plain language of Rule 32.1 shows that it applies

only once a supervised release violator is in custody for the violation. Therefore,

we conclude that the delay that Magana-Colin challenges did not violate either

Rule 32.1 or the Due Process Clause and we AFFIRM the district court’s

revocation of his supervised release. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,780,301
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      590,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,818,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,603,732
<PP&E>                                          14,215,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (596,498)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,772,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (11,799,152)
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,094,937
<COMMON>                                        45,119,421
<OTHER-SE>                                     (44,286,081)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,360,814
<SALES>                                           (250,677)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  (250,677)
<CGS>                                              335,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (11,164,577)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (81,180)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,913,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,995,080)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,995,080)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.38)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

h0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145114

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145114

COA: 302415

Wayne CC: 10

- 007540

- FC

LAURA MARIA STEPHENS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2012

judgment of the Cour t of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.