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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * Case No. 3:17-cr-190

Plaintiff, *

District Judge Walter H. Rice

-v- * Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DEANDRE EUGENE WHITE, *

Defendant. *

DEFICIENCY ORDER

This case is before the Court on Defendant’s filing of a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 73) 

which was not accompanied by the appellate filing fee of $505.00. 

Pursuant to McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601 (1997), it is hereby ORDERED that

Defendant pay the filing fee of $505.00 not later than December 23, 2019, to the Clerk of this 

Court, OR file by that date with the Sixth Circuit a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

Failure to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with supporting 

documents with the Sixth Circuit (1) may result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute

and (2) will result in this Court’s assessing the entire filing fee against Defendant. If the appeal is

dismissed for failure to prosecute, it will not be reinstated despite subsequent payment or filing of

the in forma pauperis application.

The Clerk shall certify a copy of this Order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

November 21, 2019. s/ Michael R. Merz 

 United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                    983
<SECURITIES>                                            6,973
<RECEIVABLES>                                           9,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       18,171
<PP&E>                                                    690
<DEPRECIATION>                                            138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         33,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   6,946
<BONDS>                                                 5,055
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 1
<COMMON>                                                   23
<OTHER-SE>                                             10,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           33,441
<SALES>                                                 9,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       45,835
<CGS>                                                  10,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          10,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       17,758
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      4,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         8,642
<INCOME-TAX>                                            2,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    11,542
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        (7,860)
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            3,682
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.15


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 15, 2009

jm 

# Order

July 15, 2009

139107 (22)

ROBERT HULVEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139107
COA: 290494 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $4.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned
with this order. Failure to comply with this orde r shall result in the appeal not being
filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $371.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv019 

Frederick T. Patterson, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

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

Magistrate Judge on September 12, 2018 (Doc. 10). 

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). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report 

and Recommendation have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgement 

(Doc. 8) is DENIED consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
Exhibit 10.1


 


Amendment
of Memorandum of Understanding


 


Between


 


Gulf
Pearl Ltd. and goNumerical Ltd. in partnership (the Consulting Firms)


 


and


 


Precious
Investments Inc. (PNIK)


 


This Amendment,
amends the last Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between PNIK and the Consulting Firms, with an Effective Date of October
1, 2015, which superseded and replaced any previous agreements signed between PNIK and the Consulting Firms. Defined terms used
herein, but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the MOU. This Amendment shall be effective as of the last date
signed below. The Parties agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


The section
titled Remuneration shall be changed to the following:


 


Remuneration


 


The Consulting
Firms shall each receive 500,000 restricted shares in PNIK with the vesting terms described in the Stock Vesting Milestones section
of this MOU.


 


In addition,
for the first 2,000,000 tokens sold, the Consulting Firms shall keep 15% of any proceeds of the BitGems crowdsale as commission.
For the remaining tokens (the last three million tokens) the Consulting Firms shall keep 10% of any proceeds of the BitGems crowdsale
as commission.


 


	Signed
    By:	 	 
	 	 	 
	goNumerical
    Ltd.	 	Precious
    Investments Inc.
	 	 	 
	/s/
    Virgile Rostand	 	/s/
    N. Hearn
	Virgile
    Rostand, President	 	N.
    Hearn, CEO
	2015-10-12	 	2015-10-12
	 	 	 
	Gulf
    Pearl Ltd.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4314 

To permit continued financing of Government operations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2009 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To permit continued financing of Government operations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONTINUED FINANCING OF GOVERNMENT OP4 ERATIONS. 

5 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking the dollar amount 

7 contained therein and inserting ‘‘$12,394,000,000,000’’. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Harriet V. Morseman v. The City of Ionia.

*Charter construed: Streets: Eminent domain: Aite?npt to purchase: Condition precedent: Judicial notice: Record.*Under a city charter authorizing the common council when a street is to he laid'out, to purchase the* right of way of the owners if the parties can agree upon the price, and providing that in case they cannot agree it shall be lawful for a justice to issue a venire to summon a jury of freeholders to pass upon the necessity of using the grounds and to assess the value, the power of the justice to issue the venire depends upon the failure of the parties to agree upon the price; and the fact of such failure is not one the justice* can take judicial notice of, hut it is to be proved or shown to him in sucIl form as to he matter of record in his office.

*Proceedings to open streets: Record: Attempt to agree on price of lands.*A record of proceedings under such a charter to open a street, which fails-to show any -evidence of any attempt to agree upon the price of the* land sought to he condemned, is fatally defective.

*Heard June 10.*

*Decided June 18.*

*Certiorari*to.Jolm M. Stacj, a justice of tbe peace of the city of Ionia.

*Marble é Webster*and *John W. Champlin,*for plaintiff ire *certiorari,*were stopped by tbe court.

*L. •B. Soule,*for defendant in *certiorari.*

Pee. Cukiam:

This was a proceeding on the part of the city to condemn land for a street. The charter of the city authorizes tbe common council when a street is to be laid ont, to pur-*284cliaso the right of way of the owners, if the parties can agree upon the price; and in case they cannot agree it is provided that it shall bo lawful for any justice of the peace of said city to issue a *venire*to summon a jury of freeholders to pass upon the necessity of using the grounds or premises, and to assess the value. The charter thus makes the power of the justice to issue the *venire*depend upon the failure of the parties to agree upon the- price; and whether there has been such failure or not, is not a fact the justice can take judicial notice of, but is one to be proved or shown to him, in such form as to be matter of record in his office. It is an essential prerequisite to his right to issue the *venire,*and cannot be presumed. It is a step in that class of proceedings in which the authority to act must affirmatively appear. It seems from the record before us, that the justice in the present case proceeded to issue a *venire*without any evidence whatever of an attempt to agree upon the price of the land sought to be condemned. At all events, the return fails to show "any thing of the kind, and this we must consider as equivalent to a return that no •such showing was made to the justice.

The proceedings must be quashed.
#### Chester Lefleur *vs.*Liberty Laundry Co. Inc.

June 27, 1940.

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff was hurt when the wheel of a truck in which he was riding fell into a pit around a cellar window. The grating over the pit was loose. The truck was operated by a fellow servant in the employ of the uninsured defendant. The auditor found the operator negligent. That finding warranted the verdict for the plaintiff. That finding did not purport to be a mere conclusion from subsidiary facts found. But subsidiary *619facts and other evidence outside the report tended to support the general finding of negligence.

*E. S. Searle & S. Keedy,*for the defendant, submitted a brief.

No argument nor brief for the plaintiff.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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-Q of Rackspace Hosting, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Bruce R. Knooihuizen, as Principal Financial Officer of Rackspace Hosting, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rackspace Hosting, Inc.





Date: May 5, 2010



By:

/s/ Bruce R. KnooihuizenBruce R. KnooihuizenChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and  Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:17-mj-00791-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 46
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:17-mj-00791-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 47
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FININCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

David H. Brown, Chief Executive Officer and Joseph E. Riordan, Chief Financial
Officer of Valley Community Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company"), each certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

1.    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004
      (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and

2.    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Date: July 28, 2004

                                             By /s/ David H. Brown
                                                -----------------------------
                                                    David H. Brown
                                                    President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                             By /s/ Joseph E. Riordan
                                                -----------------------------
                                                    Joseph E. Riordan
                                                    Executive Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                      -25-
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER TO HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

TO PREPARE~ CERTIFY~ AND FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK’S RECORD

Appellate case name:

Appellate case number:

Trial court case number:

In re Salverson

01-12-00384-CV

2010-31668

Our complete review of the above-referenced appeal requires a supplemental clerk’s

record including the following document:

 ̄ March 11, 2012 order granting motion to non-suit case (Final Order).

This supplemental clerk’s record is due to be filed in the First Court of Appeals no later

than July 20, 2012.

Judge’s signature:/s/Jane Bland

[] Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: July 12, 2012
The State 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Monday, February 23, 2015

No. 04-14-00571-CR

Lawrence Steele TERRILL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-04-10391-CR

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s brief was originally due to be filed with this court on January 12, 2015. We 

granted the State’s first motion for an extension of time to file the brief until February 11, 2015. 

On February 20, 2015, the State filed its second motion for extension of time to file its brief. It 

requested a thirty-day extension for a total extension of sixty days. 

The State’s motion is GRANTED. The State’s brief must be filed with this court not 

later than March 13, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1   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 USA Video Interactive Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edwin Molina, Chief Executive 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:  1. this report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the 1934 Act, and  2. the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the registrant's financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.  By: /s/ Edwin Molina ----------------------------------- Name: Edwin Molina Title: President and Chief Executive Officer  Date:November 18, 2010
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

THE UNITED STATES EX REL. DSEA 

SERVICES, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BRIGADIER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, 

LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 

Case No. 3:17-cv-83 

Judge Thomas M. Rose

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

On May 10, 2018, the parties filed a “Mediation Status Update” (Doc. 12). In that filing, 

the parties (a) requested that the Court extend the time for mediation another five months, up 

through and including, until October 10, 2018, and (b) stated that they would provide the Court 

with another status update after mediation occurs. On May 14, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ 

request. The parties did not provide the Court with any status update until the Court’s staff recently 

reached out to the parties’ counsel to ask for one. In response, the Court’s staff was quickly 

provided with an informal status update and a request. The Court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The parties—either jointly or separately—file a status report with the Court within 

10 days of the date of this Order;

2. The parties—either jointly or separately—provide the Court with a status update 

in regard to this case every 60 days after that status report, and any further failure 

to provide the Court with a status update may result in sanctions; and

3. Any party file with the Court any request that it has by way of the Court’s 
2

electronic docketing system.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, December 2, 2019. 

s/Thomas M. Rose

________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 21.1SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT1. Molecular Devices GmbH, a company organized under the Laws of Germany. 2. Molecular Devices Ltd., a company organized under the Laws of England and Wales. 3. Skatron Instruments AS, a company organized under the Laws of Norway. 4. Nihon Molecular Devices Corporation Ltd., a corporation organized under the Laws of Japan. 5. Cytion S.A., a corporation organized under the Laws of Switzerland. 6. LJL BioSystems, Ltd., a company organized under the Laws of England and Wales. 7. Universal Imaging Corporation, a corporation organized under the Laws of Pennsylvania. 8. Astros Acquisition Sub II, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the Laws of the State of California. 9. Molecular Devices Korea, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the Laws of the Republic of Korea. 10. Molecular Devices PTY Limited (formerly Axon Research Pty.Ltd.) a company organized under the Laws of the State of Victoria, Australia. 11. Molecular Devices Instrumentacao Cientifica do Brasil Ltda, a company organized under the Laws of Brazil. 12. Molecular Devices Shanghai Limited, a company organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China. 13. Molecular Devices Limited, a company organized under the laws of Hong Kong. 14. Molecular Devices International, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. 15. Molecular Devices India Private Limited, a company organized under the laws of India.