alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6418

DANIEL TAYLOR , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CARL MANIS, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHURCH, Floor Officer at Wallens Ridge State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HYLTON, Floor Officer at Wallens Ridge State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLIAMS, Floor Officer at Wallens Ridge State Prison; CORRECTIONAL OFFICE R CARBER, Floor Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STACY, Floor Officer at Wallens Ridge State Prison; OSBORNE, Counselor for the VDOC assigned at Wallens Ridge State Prison , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the W estern District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Elizabeth Kay Dillon , District Judge. ( 7:20

- cv - 00121

- EKD

- JCH )

Submitted : August 31, 2022 Decided: September 28, 2022

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Daniel Taylor , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6418 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Daniel Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have re viewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order

. Taylor v. Manis , No. 7:20

- cv - 00121

- EKD

- JCH (W.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2021) . We grant Taylor’s motion to supplement his informal brief . We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-6418 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 11


                                  U-SHIP, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                                                     For the Year Ended June 30,
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                           1997         1998
                                                      -----------   -----------

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding    4,172,862     4,977,469

Shares outstanding used to compute net loss per share   4,172,862     4,977,469
                                                      ===========   ===========

Net Loss                                              $(2,527,918)  $(1,901,130)
                                                      ===========   ===========

Net Loss Per Common Share, basic and diluted          $     (0.61)  $     (0.38)
                                                      ===========   ===========
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MAUREEN LOUISE RIOPELLE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-009

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

*CORRECTED* DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 13) 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on January 28, 2019, submitted a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 13). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its

entirety. Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for 

further proceedings, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/6/2019 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-77566) and
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
33-77232) of Reunion Industries, Inc. of our report dated March 26, 1997
appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on
page S-1 of this Form 10-K.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 26, 1997
MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 4, 2011

SUBJECT: Conversation with Valspar Regarding Formaldehyde Replacement 

Chemicals in Wood Furniture Coatings

FROM: Nicholas Swanson, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG 

TO: Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786

A telephone conversation with Ms. Sherry Stookey of Valspar transpired on August 4, 

2011 to discuss replacement chemicals used in place of formaldehyde in coatings for the wood 

furniture industry, specifically kitchen cabinets. Ms. Stookey stated that the formaldehyde found 

in conversion varnishes is part of the resin and to replace the formaldehyde, an entire 

replacement for the resin would be needed. This replacement resin used by Valspar and other 

unnamed coating manufacturers is a product purchased from an independent supplier. Due to 

confidential business information, the supplier and the composition of the resin was not 

divulged. Ms. Stookey assured me that the replacement resin did not contain any hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) and that the replacement resin was significantly more health protective than 

formaldehyde. 

The replacement resin is not a drop-in replacement for resins containing formaldehyde. 

This means that to use this new resin, a complete reformulation of the coating is necessary for 

the chemicals to create the desired varnish. Ms. Stookey also reiterated that this resin has a 

significant cost increase of at least 50 percent for customers compared to the traditionally higher 

formaldehyde containing resins. The cost of the resin itself is 4 to 5 times more expensive than 

traditional formaldehyde containing resin. These new resins are a developing technology that 

should continue to drive formaldehyde concentrations in wood furniture coatings down. 

However, these coatings are still continuing to be developed. Because each wood furniture 

manufacturer has their own unique coatings, manufacturing processes, product performance 

requirements and target markets, implementation of these resins across the industry may not be

feasible. After reformulation with the new resin, significant testing and verification is required 

prior to being used in the production of wood furniture. This may affect the industry’s ability to 

implement some of these coatings in the very near future.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

410 

CA 16-01611 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

LINZY FANCETT, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF 14 

YEARS, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL 

GUARDIAN SUSAN KUHN AND SUSAN KUHN, INDIVIDUALLY,

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF SYRACUSE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

JOSEPH FAHEY, INTERIM CORPORATION COUNSEL, SYRACUSE (JOHN A. SICKINGER

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LYNN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (PATRICIA A. LYNN-FORD OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered April 22, 2016. The order denied

the motion of defendant for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover

damages for injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiff when

her foot went through a gap between two sections of a steel grate

covering a debris basin. Defendant moved for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint on the ground that the grate and debris basin

were part of a culvert on a City street, and the prior written notice

of the defect required by Syracuse City Charter § 8-115 (1) was not

provided with respect thereto. We conclude that Supreme Court

properly denied the motion, but our reasoning differs from that of the

court. 

To meet its initial burden on the motion, defendant was required

to establish as a matter of law that the debris basin was indeed a

culvert or part of a City street for purposes of the prior written

notice requirement (see generally Staudinger v Village of Granville,

304 AD2d 929, 929). We conclude that defendant failed to meet that

burden (cf. Duffel v City of Syracuse, 103 AD3d 1235, 1235; Hall v

City of Syracuse, 275 AD2d 1022, 1023). Here, the debris basin is not

a culvert (see Sobotka v Zimmerman, 48 AD3d 1260, 1261). With respect

to whether the debris basin was situated in a street for the purposes

of the prior written notice requirement, we conclude that defendant

failed to submit evidence establishing the precise location of the
-2- 410 

CA 16-01611 

debris basin. Thus, in the absence of a metes and bounds description

of the nearby streets, a survey map, or any instruments of conveyance

establishing the boundaries of the City streets, defendant failed to

establish that the debris basin was situated in a City street for the

purposes of the prior written notice requirement (see Staudinger, 304

AD2d at 929).

Entered: March 31, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02700]

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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 10, 2014. 11:30 a.m. EST.

PLACE: Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Special Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.
SUMMARY: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will 
meet in a special session, to be conducted telephonically, to discuss 
and approve the agency's Operating Plan for Fiscal Year 2014.
    The meeting will be available for public observation via a complete 
audio recording and a verbatim transcript of the meeting to be promptly 
posted on the BBG's public Web site at www.bbg.gov.
    Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or 
adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the Agency's 
public Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Patricia Hargrave,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-02700 Filed 2-4-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4518 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4518

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a deduction for 
image advertising expenses for any trade or business the gross receipts 
                     of which exceed $100 million.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2010

Mr. Hall of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny a deduction for 
image advertising expenses for any trade or business the gross receipts 
                     of which exceed $100 million.

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

SECTION 1. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN ADVERTISING.

    (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items not deductible) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 280I. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN ADVERTISING.

    ``(a) In General.--In the case of a person who is not a qualified 
small business, no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for 
any amount paid or incurred for advertising anything other than a 
service or product.
    ``(b) Qualified Small Business.--For purposes of this section, the 
term `qualified small business' means any person engaged in a trade or 
business the gross receipts of which for the preceding taxable year did 
not exceed $100,000,000.
    ``(c) Common Control.--All members of the same controlled group of 
corporations (within the meaning of section 52(a)) and all persons 
under common control (within the meaning of section 52(b)) shall be 
treated as 1 person for purposes of this section.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part IX of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new item:

``Sec. 280I. Denial of deduction for certain advertising expenses.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of 
this Act in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Obesity 
Review.
    Date: February 4, 2022.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, 
National Institutes of Health, Room 7353, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 7, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00477 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ANJUM A. QURESHI, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cv-27

vs.

INDIAN RIVER TRANSPORT, et al., Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent Case)

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. 

Doc. 25. This civil consent case came before the Court for oral argument on July 22, 2019 at 10:15 

a.m. in Dayton, Ohio. Attorney Jordan Lebovitz, current counsel of record for Plaintiffs, and 

Plaintiff, Anjum A. Quershi,

1 appeared. Beth Lashuk on behalf of Defendants also appeared. Mr.

Quershi reported that his interests are no longer aligned with that of his attorney, and Mr. Lebovitz 

advised the Court he will be filing a motion to withdraw. 

The Court thereby ORDERS Attorney Lebovitz to file and serve on Plaintiff his motion to 

withdraw as counsel -- in accordance with Local Rule 83.4 -- by Friday, July 26, 2019. Plaintiff 

is ORDERED to advise the Court by Friday, August 9, 2019 whether he objects to the motion to 

withdraw or consents to the motion and intends to proceed pro se. Such notice shall be sent to 

Office of the Clerk, Walter H. Rice Federal Building & Courthouse, 200 West 2nd St., Dayton, 

Ohio 45402 via overnight mail. In the interest of allowing time for the filing of this motion and

 1

 The Court notes that, though she did not appear at the hearing, Anna Qureshi is also a Plaintiff in this case. 

This order serves as a notice of her right to appear at the September 10th hearing through Counsel or pro se. Prior to 

the next hearing, Attorney Lebovitz shall inform the Court whether Plaintiff Anna Qureshi will continue participating 

in this case, and whether he will represent her in that capacity.
the response, the oral argument on the motion to enforce is HEREBY CONTINUED until

September 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., a date agreed to by all counsel and Mr. Qureshi. 

Plaintiff is hereby ADVISED that he will be permitted to present evidence, including, but 

not limited to, witness testimony from Rafiq Rokaria and others, at the September 10th hearing. 

The Court also ORDERS Attorney Lebovitz, per Local Rules, to promptly serve a copy of this 

order on Anjum A. Qureshi and Anna Qureshi. Finally, if Rafiq Rokaria seeks to appear in this 

matter as counsel for Anjum and/or Anna Qureshi, he shall file a motion to appear pro hac vice in 

compliance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 23, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00757

- CV

TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION

v. CHARLOTTE A. HANSEN AND JAMES LARRY HANSEN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 04

- 60394

- 3

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certifi ed below for observance.

January 29, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

S&S HOLDCO, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-783
Plaintiff, Bertelsman, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
THREE RIVERS PROVIDER ORDER
NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant.

This matter came before the Court for a follow-up telephone status conference on January
22, 2020.

The calendar dates in this matter are STAYED pending plaintiff's submission of a
motion to compel the deposition testimony of Blaine Pollock and the Court’s resolution of the
motion, after which the Court will issue an amended Calendar Order.

By agreement of the parties, and with the Court’s approval, the deposition of Robert
Malone will take place on February 19, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: (22. [2b Zien A. LAL
Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge
Table of
Contents


Exhibit
23.01




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-62724, 333-67424 and 333-105497) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-88543, 333-95713,
333-35738, 333-44768, 333-61218, 333-63900, 333-67730, 333-86324, 333-102771,
333-105498, 333-113856, 333-123377,
333-132490, 333-141370, 333-151188 and 333-158676)
of (1) our report dated February 12, 2010, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Silicon Image, Inc. (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption
of an accounting principle related to fair value measurements), and (2) our
report dated February 12, 2010, relating to the effectiveness of Silicon Image
Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Silicon Image, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2009.







/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP










San Jose,
California


February
12, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHAN TODD SMITH,

Case No. 2:17-cv-1070

Plaintiff, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers

v.

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS 

& COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER

This case is part of a global settlement of the remaining cases that make up In Re: E. I. 

Du Pont De Nemours And Company C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, 2:13-md-2433. The Court, 

therefore, DIRECTS the Clerk to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case. If for some 

reason this case does not settle with the group, the parties shall inform the Court and it will be 

restored forthwith to this Court’s active docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3/31/2021 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-01070-EAS-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/31/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 117
August 3, 2011 

Mr. Joseph D. Cimperman 

Director of Operations 

Flight Options, LLC 

26180 Curtiss Wright Parkway 

Cleveland, OH 44143 

Dear Mr. Cimperman: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We’ve received your July 11, 2011, petition on behalf of Flight Options, LLC (Flight 

Options) for an exemption from § 43.3(g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

This exemption, if granted, would allow Flight Options properly trained pilots (under an 

approved training program) to accomplish supervised updates of navigational software 

databases of installed flight management systems. 

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0751) and we are processing 

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We’ll Process the Petition 

Because granting your petition wouldn’t set a precedent, we’ve determined that we shouldn’t 

delay action on it by publishing it for public comment. Therefore, we’ve waived the 

requirement for Federal Register publication. Even though we have waived this requirement, 

you shouldn’t construe this action to be approval of your request. We will consider fully the 

facts and circumstances contained in your petition and will process it accordingly.
2 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frances Shaver 

Program Analyst 

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division