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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO,

EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER M. COOPER,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00948

Plaintiff,

Judge George C. Smith

v.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

CITY OF COLUMBUS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all parties hereby 

stipulate to the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Sean L. Walton 

Sean L. Walton (0088401) - LEAD

Chanda L. Brown (0081076)

WALTON + BROWN, LLP

395 East Broad Street, Suite 200

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 636-3476

Facsimile: (614) 636-3453

Email: swalton@waltonbrownlaw.com

cbrown@waltonbrownlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Michael R. Halloran (per email auth.) 

Michael R. Halloran (0089093) - LEAD

Andrew D.M. Miller (0074515)

Assistant City Attorneys

CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF

LAW

ZACH KLEIN CITY ATTORNEY

77 North Front Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43215

mrhalloran@columbus.gov

admmiller@columbus.gov

Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 18th day of July, 2018, a copy of this Joint Stipulation 

of Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of this Court. Notice of this filing will 

be sent to all parties by operation of this Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may 

access this filing through the Court’s system. 

/s/ Sean L. Walton ____ 

Sean L. Walton (0088401)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE
ACCOMPANYING NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,176
<SECURITIES>                                    12,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                       950
<INVENTORY>                                      1,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,525
<PP&E>                                           8,855
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,382
<SALES>                                         35,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,109
<CGS>                                           20,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                       665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,363
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,363
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
#### Truitt YAWN v. STATE of Arkansas

690 S.W.2d 120

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 20, 1985

*J. Fred Hart,*for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Theodore Holder,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Truitt Yawn, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, J. Fred Hart, admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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-QSB of Syndication, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Brian
      Sorrentino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.


*Dated:*August 20*,
                        2007*
                
                */s/
                        Brian Sorrentino**Brian
                        Sorrentino**Chief
                        Financial
                        Officer*
Case: 1:17-cv-00643-SJD-KLL Doc #: 102 Filed: 10/05/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 5694
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4445 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 720
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4445

                          [Report No. 111-379]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2010

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                           December 20, 2010

               Reported by Mr. Dorgan, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend Public Law 95-232 to repeal a restriction on treating as 
 Indian country certain lands held in trust for Indian pueblos in New 
                                Mexico.

    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 ``Indian Pueblo Cultural Center 
Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON TREATING AS INDIAN COUNTRY CERTAIN 
              LANDS HELD IN TRUST FOR INDIAN PUEBLOS IN NEW MEXICO.

    Public Law 95-232 is amended in the first section in subsection (b) 
by striking ``However, such property shall not be `Indian country' as 
defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON GAMING.

    Public Law 95-232 is amended in the first section by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(e) Prohibition on Gaming.--Gaming, as defined and regulated by 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), shall be 
prohibited on land held in trust pursuant to subsection (b).''.
                                                       Calendar No. 720

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4445

                          [Report No. 111-379]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend Public Law 95-232 to repeal a restriction on treating as 
 Indian country certain lands held in trust for Indian pueblos in New 
                                Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 20, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
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 Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry
      Fong, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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
      SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and





(2)         
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company,
      as
      of, and for the periods presented in theReport.








/s/
                Henry
                FongHenry
                FongPrincipal
                Executive Officer and
              Principal
                Accounting OfficerJune
                20, 2008








A
      SIGNED
      ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED
      TO
      INHIBITON THERAPEUTICS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY INHIBITON THERAPEUTICS,
      INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
      REQUEST.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF omo 

WESTERN DIVISION 

. .... 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. t ; 1 7 c R 1 0 8 

INDICTMENT DLOTT 

v. 

MICHAEL CHAN 

The Grand Jury charges that: 

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) 

18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) 

NOTICE OF FORFEITURE 

COUNTl 

(Cyberstalking) 

From about October 1, 2013, the exact date being unknown, until about August 2017, in 

the Southern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of New York, and elsewhere, Defendant, 

MICHAEL CHAN, with the intent to injure, harass, and cause substantial emotional distress to a 

·person in another state, namely, Ohio, used facilities of interstate or foreign commerce, including 

electronic mail and internet websites, to engage in a course of conduct that caused substantial 

emotional distress to the victim and placed her in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2261A(2)(B). 

COUNT2 

(Interstate Communications with Intent to Extort) 

From about October 1, 2013, the exact date being unknown, until about August 2017, in 

the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the defendant, MICHAEL CHAN, knowingly and 

willfully did transmit in interstate and foreign commerce from the State ofNew York to the State 

of Ohio, a communication via the internet to KM, and the communication contained a threat to 

, . l: j •• -

Case: 1:17-cr-00108-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 09/20/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 52
kidnap and injure KM, specifically, the defendant threatened to attack and rape KM, among other 

acts. 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 875(c). 

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 

Upon conviction of the offense set forth in Count 2 of this Indictment, defendant 

MICHAEL CHAN, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(l)(C) and 

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds 

traceable to the violation. 

SUBSTITUTE ASSETS 

If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant: 

(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or 

deposited with, a third party; ( c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; ( d) has been 

substantially diminished in value; or (e) has been commingled with other property which cannot 

be divided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), 

as incorporated by 28 U. S.C. § 2461 ( c ), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant, 

up to the value of the property described above. 

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

CHRIST . MUNCY 

ASSISTANT UNITED STAT ATTORNEY 

A TRUE BILL 

/<;/ 

GRANrl JURYFOREPERSON 

Page 2 of2 

Case: 1:17-cr-00108-SJD Doc #: 13 Filed: 09/20/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 53
exv10w39






Exhibit 10.39




FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE DATED 4-1-98



This amendment of Lease, entered into as of the 12th day of November, 2009, by
and between Cambridge Apartments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and Navarre Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation.



WHEREAS: Cambridge Apartments, Inc. as lessor and Navarre Corporation as lessee
have previously entered into and are now operating under a lease of certain premises dated 4-1-98
as amended.



WHEREAS: Lessee has requested lessor to execute a COLLATERAL ACCESS AGREEMENT (agreement) in favor
of Wells Fargo Foothill, LLC (Exhibit 1 attached) which would replace a LANDLORD’S WAIVER AND
CONSENT previously furnished in accordance with the FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE DATED 9-27-01.



WHEREAS: Said agreement changes lessor’s rights, duties and security under the lease.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of lessor furnishing said agreement the parties agree the lease is
amended to provide as follows:





	 	A.	 	The LANDLORD’S WAIVER AND CONSENT provided for in the FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE DATED
9-27-01 is null and void.
	 
	 	B.	 	The letter of credit from General Electric Capital Corporation provided for in the
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE DATED 9-27-01 is no longer effective.
	 
	 	C.	 	The security and damage deposit in the amount of $100,000.00 previously furnished
contemporaneously with the execution of the FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE DATED 9-27-01 will
continue to be held by lessor under the SECURITY AND DAMAGE DEPOSIT previously executed
(Exhibit 2 attached).
	 
	 	 	 	All other terms and provisions of lease shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF: the lessor and lessee have caused these presents to be executed in form and
manner sufficient to bind them at law, as of the day and year first written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Lessee: Navarre Corporation, a Minnesota
 Corporation	 	 	 	Lessor: Cambridge Apartments, Inc.,
 a Minnesota Corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	 	/s/ J. Reid Porter 	 	 	 	By: 	 	/s/ John R. Paulson 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Its: Executive Vice President and CFO	 	 	 	 	 	Its: President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

VERONICA THOMAS, 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-857

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Jolson

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Authorization to 

File the Administrative Record Under Seal. (Doc. 10). Defendant explains, inter alia, that the 

record “contains Plaintiff’s sensitive [medical] treatment information, as well as personal family 

and financial information.” (Id. at 1–2). Accordingly, for good cause shown, Defendant’s

Motion for Leave to File Under Seal is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 27, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PDF Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 11, 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''), the PDF Association, Inc. 
(PDFa) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or 
changes to its standards development activities. 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.
    The name and principal place of business of the standards 
development organization is: PDF Association, Inc., 10 Longfellow Road, 
Winchester, MA. The nature and scope of the PDF Association's standards 
development activities are: The standardization of terminology, 
definitions, formats, and procedures for the production and use of PDF 
documents, metadata associated with the PDF documents, storage and 
retrieval of information. Standards, recommended practices, technical 
reports, white papers, and application notes prepared in accordance 
with the PDF Association's policies and procedures are intended to have 
broad acceptance as well as provide the basis upon which to achieve 
international accord in the development of industry standards. The PDF 
Association will also coordinate its work with that of other existing 
ANSI accredited organizations and committees working in related areas.

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division, 
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2022-00578 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 2:17-cv-01120-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 12/20/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 2 of 26 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 3 of 26 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 4 of 26 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 5 of 26 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 6 of 26 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 7 of 26 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 8 of 26 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 9 of 26 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 10 of 26 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 11 of 26 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 12 of 26 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 13 of 26 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 14 of 26 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 15 of 26 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 16 of 26 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 17 of 26 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 18 of 26 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 19 of 26 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 20 of 26 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 21 of 26 PAGEID #: 21
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 22 of 26 PAGEID #: 22
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 23 of 26 PAGEID #: 23
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 24 of 26 PAGEID #: 24
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 25 of 26 PAGEID #: 25
Case: 3:17-mj-00468-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/05/17 Page: 26 of 26 PAGEID #: 26
Case: 3:17-cr-00162-WHR Doc #: 101 Filed: 01/18/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 211
Case: 3:17-cr-00162-WHR Doc #: 101 Filed: 01/18/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 212
22238

#### CONNECTICUT NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. Walter W. WILSON, Jr., Respondent.

(326 S. E. (2d) 657)

Supreme Court

*416*Curtis L. Coltrane*of *Herring & Meyer, P. A.,*Hilton Head Island, *for appellant.*

*Thomas L. Brooks*of *Palmer & Brooks, P. A.,*Hilton Head Island, *for respondent.*

Submitted Jan. 23, 1985.

Decided Feb. 20, 1985.

Littlejohn, Chief Justice:

In this action to collect on three promissory notes, the plaintiff-appellant, Connecticut National Bank, sued the defendant-respondent, Walter W. Wilson, Jr. (Borrower), a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina, in our Court of Common Pleas. This action was instituted approximately two months after the commencement of an action in the United States District Court of Connecticut by the Borrower and thirty-three other plaintiffs against the same Bank. The Connecticut action asserts allegations of Securities Exchange Act violations, fraud and negligence and seeks rescission of various promissory notes including those of the Borrowers.

In this action, the bank seeks to recover on the same notes which the Borrower seeks to rescind in the Connecticut court. The Borrower admits signing the notes but denies liability. He moves to stay the South Carolina court proceeding pending the resolution of the Connecticut action on the ground that there is pending “... a related action ... in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.” The trial judgé granted the motion. We reverse.

In *McConnell v. Williams,*252 S. C. 573, 167 S. E. (2d) 492 (1969), we held that an order of abatement should be issued only where there is an identity of parties, causes of action, issues and relief.

> *417Generally speaking, in order that one of two pending actions may be urged in abatement of the other, the actions must be identical or substantially so, that is, they must be between the same parties (infra §§ 56-62), based on the same cause of action, involve the same issues (infra §40), and be capable of authorizing the same relief (infra § 43).

1 C.J.S. *Abatement and Revival*§ 39.

We hold that the parties, objects, issues, causes of action, and relief herein involved are not identical with those in the Connecticut action. In Connecticut, there is involved violations of federal statutes, fraud and negligence. Here, there is involved merely an action to recover on promissory notes. Abatement of the action was improper. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for trial.

Reversed.

Ness, Gregory, Harwell and Chandler, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:17-cv-00783-WOB-KLL Doc #: 35 Filed: 06/05/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 233