alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-080 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

CHAE HARRIS, Warden, 

 Warren Correctional Institution, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 

 

 This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 70) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Decision and Order/Report and Recommendations of May 22, 2018 (ECF No. 65). The 

Court has reviewed the Objections as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) for non-dispositive matters 

and 72(b)(3) for dispositive matters. 

 Petitioner’s claimed status as a “Moorish American citizen of the Land” has no bearing on 

the resolution of this case. Petitioner, as a person in custody of the State of Ohio, has invoked the 

jurisdiction of this Court to determine under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 whether he is in custody pursuant 

to a judicial order that violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. He has the 

same rights under that statute as any other natural human being thus confined. His claimed status 

as a Moorish American does not confer upon him any rights not enjoyed by any other person this 

confined, nor does he have any rights under the treaty between the United States and the Kingdom 

of Morocco of 1787. 
2 

 Petitioner’s demand for a “Certified Delegation of Authority Order” is rejected. No such 

document exists nor is there any provision of federal law that provides for creation of such a 

document. 

 Petitioner’s demand for a certified copy of Magistrate Judge Merz’s Sworn Oath of Office 

is also rejected. The Court takes judicial notice that Michael R. Merz too the prescribed oath of 

office as a United States Magistrate Judge before the Honorable Carl B. Rubin in open court on 

November 20, 1984, and has served continuously in that office since that date. 

 The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case by virtue of 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Ohio courts in this case has been 

dealt with in the Decision and Order of May 4, 2018 (ECF No. 53). 

 The existence of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, providing for motions for extension of time, does not 

imply or create a right to have such a motion granted. 

 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 70) are OVERRULED in their entirety. 

June 6, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 _____________________________ 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00129**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### 00129\00129_ Certification Statement.PDF Plant certification statement x 

### 00129\00129_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00129\00129_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00129\00129_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 

### 00129\Supporting Documents\00129_ Aerial Photo.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00129\Supporting Documents\00129_ Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00129\00129_Checklist_102510_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00129\00129_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### Sloan *v.*Butler.

Opinion delivered March 28, 1921.

Tkover and conversion. — One whose property has been unlawfully converted may recover its value from the tort-feasor, regardless. of an opportunity to recover possession of the property from another.

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; *Jas. Cochran,*Judge;

reversed.

*Starbird*& *Starbird,*for appellant.

The court erred in both instructions, Nos. 1 and 3... The theory of defendant was, and the court sustained him in that theory, that if afterward plaintiff, even after suit was brought, had an opportunity to recover his mule and did not do so but still pursued the defendant, he lost his action by his own negligence. But this is not the law. The proposition is well settled that defendant, having once converted the property, is liable for his conversion, regardless of the owner’s opportunity to otherwise save himself. 28 Cyc. 2060; 29 Ark. 365; 37 *Id.*32; 39 *Id.*387; i89 *Id.*342. The errors were misleading and • prejudicial.

Humphreys, J.

Appellant instituted suit against appellee before a justice of the peace in Crawford County, Arkansas, to recover $50 on account of the .alleged unlawful conversion by appellee of a mule belonging to appellant.

Appellee denied that he unlawfully converted the mule, and the trial upon this issue resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee, from which appellant prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court of said county.

In the circuit court the cause was submitted to a jury upon the pleadings, evidence and instructions of the court with like result. An appeal from the circuit court judgment has been duly prosecuted to this court.

The record disclosed that the mule in question was owned by appellant; that its maximum value was $50; that it escaped from his pasture and wandered away.

*118There was evidence tending to show that appellee later found the mule trespassing upon his land, took it up, and, without complying with the estray laws, sold or gave it to Everett Riddle. There was also evidence tending to show that Everett Riddle himself took the mule up without the assistance of appellee, and retained possession thereof.

Appellant testified that he made no effort to recover the possession of the mule from Riddle because he had already instituted suit against appellee for converting it.

Over the objection and exception of appellant, the court sent the case to the jury upon the theory that he had no right to recover damages from appellee for the unlawful conversion of his mule if he could have recovered the mule from Everett Riddle and failed to do so. One whose property has been unlawfully converted may recover'its value from the tort-feasor, regardless of an opportunity to recover the possession of the property. *Norman*v. *Rogers,*29 Ark. 365; *Warner*v. *Capps,*37 Ark. 32; 38 Cyc. 2060.

For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4508 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4508

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2010

Ms. Velazquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
              UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 111-89 (123 Stat. 2975), is 
amended by striking ``January 31, 2010'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 30, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

DUSTIN GLENN, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-435 

- vs - District Judge Walter H. Rice 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

PREBLE COUNTY SHERIFF 

 DEPARTMENT AND STATE OF 

 OHIO 

 : 

 Respondent. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

 This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for 

Reconsideration of the final judgment (ECF No. 59). Treating the motion as made under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e), the Magistrate Judge recommended denying it because Glenn showed no error in the 

final judgment and in particular did not submit any substantive objections Report and 

Recommendations for dismissal (Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 60). Glen has objected 

again (ECF No. 61) and District Judge Rice has recommitted the case (ECF No. 62). 

 Glenn still offers no substantive objections to dismissal, despite the fact that the Report 

recommending dismissal was filed and served more than three months ago. Instead, he essentially 

seeks a further extension to some unspecified time in the future to file objections. 

 
2 

 The Emergency Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 59) should be DENIED. 

September 27, 2018. 

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge 

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report 

and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen days 

because this Report is being served by mail. .Such objections shall specify the portions of the 

Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. 

If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record 

at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or 

such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless 

the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections 

within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 

947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).
Exhibit 23

Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Microware Systems Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
(No.333-11061) on Form S-8 of Microware Systems Corporation of our report 
dated April 24, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Microware 
Systems Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1997 and 1998, and the 
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash 
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1998, 
which report appears in the March 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of 
Microware Systems Corporation. 


                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
June 25, 1998


                                     52
<PAGE>
# Virginia Airmen Conduct Engineer Exchange in Tajikistan

/ Published Feb. 14, 2024

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan – Virginia National Guard Airmen assigned to the 203rd Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers, 192nd Wing, conducted an engineer exchange with Republic of Tajikistan military and law enforcement personnel Jan. 22-26.

The exchange in Tajikistan supported the Department of Defense National Guard Bureau State Partnership Program. Virginia and Tajikistan have been partners since 2003.

The teams shared best practices, experiences and lessons, focusing on base denial, demolition, building defensive fighting positions and airfield crater repair.  

The Virginia delegation comprised 2nd Lt. Andrew Seitter, Chief Master Sgt. Karl Burnell Jr. and Master Sgt. Justin Edelman. The Tajikistan attendees included combat engineers and members with experience in explosive ordnance disposal and border protection.  

All three Virginia Airmen spoke highly of the experience.

“Overall, the exchange was successful with a lot of interaction between us and our Tajikistani partners,” said Seitter. “We see ways that we both can better our future engineering efforts. The exchange seems to have had a great effect on our partner’s future engineering strategies.” 

“I appreciate the opportunity to support the Virginia National Guard’s partnership with Tajikistan,” said Burnell. “The exchange will no doubt help us prepare for the future of military engineering operations.”

Tajik participants agreed the exchange helped both organizations. 

“We appreciate the knowledge, experience and expertise that the RED HORSE members shared,” said Capt. Amirjon Hojiev. “The experience allowed us to learn from each other and will make us even better engineers in the future.” 

Members of the 203rd conducted a similar exchange in Tajikistan in June. In July, the VNG and Tajikistan celebrated the 20th anniversary of their formal partnership in the State Partnership Program, which began in 1993 and now includes 100 nations. 

The Virginia-Tajikistan relationship has included 200 military-to-military engagements that help counter terrorism, deter violent extremism, expand emergency response capabilities, develop professionalism among leaders and staff, and promote shared values in national sovereignty and security.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41654 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL BRADLEY MILLS, also known as Brad Mills, also known as Squeeky, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-75-3

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Bradley Mills has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mills has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. The appeal is DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GREAT SOUTHLAND LIMITED, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:17-CV-00719 

: 

v. : 

: JUDGE MORRISON 

LANDASH CORPORATION, et al., : 

: MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOLSON 

Defendant. : 

DEFENDANTS XPO LOGISTICS, INC. AND XPO GLOBAL FORWARDING, INC.’S 

NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 

Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc. and XPO Global Forwarding, Inc. (collectively, “XPO”) 

hereby serve notice of its filing of the deposition transcript of David Jacoby, dated July 9, 2021. 

XPO also hereby files all the exhibits marked or referenced during the course of the 

deposition, noting that an Ex. 12 was never marked. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Martha Brewer Motley 

Kimberly Weber Herlihy (0068668)(trial attorney) 

Martha Brewer Motley (0083788) 

Thomas J. Whaling (0096430) 

Erica M. Rodriguez (0098711) 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 

52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008 

Columbus, Ohio 43216 

Phone: (614) 464-8283 Fax: (614) 719-5021 

Email: kwherlihy@vorys.com mbmotley@vorys.com 

tjwhaling@vorys.com emrodriguez@vorys.com 

Counsel for Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc. & 

XPO Global Forwarding, Inc. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 251 Filed: 12/23/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 4361
-2- 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on December 23, 2021 a true and accurate copy of 

the foregoing Reply brief was sent to counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system and to Mr. 

Baltagi and Mr. Adkins, via email, and will serve on December 27, 2021 via regular mail to: 

Afif Baltagi 

2308 Nantucket Drive, Apt. C 

Houston, TX 77057 

Jason Adkins 

885 Sternberger Road 

Jackson, Ohio 45640 

/s/ Thomas J. Whaling 

Thomas J. Whaling (0096430) 

Case: 2:17-cv-00719-SDM-KAJ Doc #: 251 Filed: 12/23/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 4362
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Connie Y. Mays,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:17cv808

Veteran Canteen Service, 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 December 8, 2017 (Doc. 3). 

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 (Doc. 3) of the 

Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma 

pauperis (doc. 1) is DENIED consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate 

Judge. Plaintiff’s required $400.00 filing fee is due thirty (30) days from the date of this 

Order or this matter will be closed for failure to pay the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Angela L. Dugan,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:17-cv-895

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michaei H. Watson

Defendant.

ORDER

On September 5, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Vascura, to whom

this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B) and General Order

14-01 for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division of Columbus, filed a

Report and Recommendation ("R&R") concerning the disposition of Angela

Dugan's ("Plaintiff) Complaint in this Social Security case. The R&R

recommended overruling PiaintifTs statement of errors and affirming the

Commissioner's decision. R&R 1, ECF No. 18.

The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Id.

at 11. The R&R further specifically advised the parties that the failure to object to

the R&R within fourteen days would result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the

District Court. Id. The deadline for filing such objections has passed, and no

objections were filed.
Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. Piaintiff's

statement of errors is OVERRULED, and the Commissioner's finding is

AFFIRMED. The Cierk shaii enterJudgment for the Commissioner and terminate

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of ZoranCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Karl Schneider, Senior Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Zoran Corporation and will be retainedby Zoran Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 
| /s/ Karl Schneider                                          |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Karl Schneider                                              |
| Senior Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: May 2, 2005

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Rich Robins v. Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and Jonathon G. 

Clinkenbeard a/k/a Jon Clinkenbeard

Appellate case number: 01-19-00059-CV

Trial court case number: 1107951

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Date motion filed: February 25, 2021

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is denied. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 49.7.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

En Banc Court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra. 

Farris, J., not participating.

Date: April 15, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4602 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4602

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center, Ohio, as the ``Emil Bolas 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2010

 Mr. Boccieri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center, Ohio, as the ``Emil Bolas 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. EMIL BOLAS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center, Ohio, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Emil Bolas Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Emil Bolas 
Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```