alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. GRANT, Appellant, v. CIA ANONIMA VENEZOLANA de NAV-EGACION et al., Appellees.

No. 21832.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 5, 1965.

Dudley A. Philips, Jr., Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, Toler & Hopkins, Leon Sarpy and James G. Burke, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Cia Anónima Venezo-lana de Navegación.

A. R. Christovich, Jr., James G. Burke, Jr., Leon Sarpy, New Orleans, La., for American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., Inter-venor, and J. P. Florio & Co., Inc., im-pleaded-respondent-appellee, Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, La., of counsel.

Before WOODBURY,* JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Judge of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, James E. Grant, was a longshoreman employed by the appellee stevedoring company, J. P. Florio Grant was injured in the hold of the M/V Nueva Esparta, while it was being unloaded in the port of New Orleans. The vessel was owned by the appellee Cia Anónima Venezolana de Navegación. The appellant brought a libel against the owner of the vessel to recover damages for his injuries and asserted that the vessel was unseaworthy and that this was the cause of his injuries. The owner of the vessel impleaded the stevedoring company and alleged that appellant’s injury was caused either by his own negligence or by the negligence of the steve-doring company. The compensation insurer of the stevedoring company, the appellee, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, intervened to recover out of any judgment for the appellant the amount it had paid to him as compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harborworkers’ Compensation Act. Trial was had in the district court *758which resulted in a determination that the vessel was seaworthy. Judgment was for the owner of the vessel. See Grant v. Cia Anónima Venezolana de Navegación, D.C., 228 F.Supp. 232. On appeal it is urged that certain documentary evidence was improperly admitted because of insufficient identification. The admission of these documents was not prejudicial to the appellant. The principal point made by the appellant is that the court’s findings are clearly erroneous. We do not think it is necessary to set forth the evidence before the district court. It is enough to say that the evidence fully supports the findings. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50150 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
BALDEMAR SANTANA

- CORONADO , also known as Baldemar Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado

- Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado, also known as Jose Cruz

Rubalcava, also known as Jose Cruz Rubalcava,

Defendant

- Appella nt

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:16

- CR

- 415

- 1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and H O, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baldemar Santana

Coronado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Santana

- Coronado h a s not filed a response. We have

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 20 , 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50150 Document: 00514355062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018No. 17

- 50150

2 reviewe d counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-50150 Document: 00514355062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
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.

RECOMMITTAL ORDER

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 29) to the

Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 23).

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions

to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that

analysis.

April & , 2018.

Ld. eS

Walter H. Rice

United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4505 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4505

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To enable State homes to furnish nursing home care to parents any of 
         whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF STATE HOME CARE FOR PARENTS OF VETERANS WHO 
              DIED WHILE SERVING IN ARMED FORCES.

    In administering section 51.210(d) of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall permit a State 
home to provide services to, in addition to non-veterans described in 
such subsection, a non-veteran any of whose children died while serving 
in the Armed Forces.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 30, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Verso Technologies, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-74258,
333-74264, 333-59372, 333-92337, 333-85107, 333-80501, 333-26015, 333-66292, 333-45028, and
333-108613) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of Verso Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
February 27, 2004, except as to note 5 which is as of March 16, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of Verso Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders deficit and cash flows for each of
the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003, which reports appear in the December 31,
2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Verso Technologies, Inc. As discussed in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, Verso Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets in 2002. /s/ KPMG LLP Atlanta, Georgia
March 25, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-54-11

Chevez M. Stanley 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 434) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1, 16 and 17 of the

superseding indictment, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those

counts.

Date: May 28, 2019 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
,O S11

)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

I REGION IX C>’ PRO 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105.3901

FEB 202015

Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2S15

S 812

Dear

On December 11, 2014, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).

We have reviewed material submitted with the following rules and found that it fulfills the completeness

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

APCD/AQMD Rule # Rule Title

Northern Sonoma County 130 Definitions

Northern Sonoma County 200 Penriitting Requirements

Northern Sonoma County 220 New Source Review

Northern Sononia Count 230 Action on Applications

These are the only SIP revisions in CARB’s December 11, 2014 submittal. In the coming months we

will review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Arnold Lazarus at (415) 972-3024.

Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan1

Director, Air Division

cc: Alex Saschin

Air Quality Engineer

Northern Sonoma Air Pollution Control District

1 50 Matheson Street

Healdsburg, California 95448-4908

Ms Karen Magliano, Acting Chief

Air Quality Planning and Science Division

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2815

Sacramento, CA 95812

Printed on Recycled Paper
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JOSHUA K. SANDER, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-102

 vs.

SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK, et al., District Judge Walter H. Rice

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.

ORDER U.S. MARSHAL TO SERVE DEFENDANTS WITH PROCESS

Now before the Court is a pro se complaint and accompanying application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Doc. 1. For good cause shown, pro se Plaintiff’s application to proceed without 

payment of costs and fees was granted. Doc. 2. 

Pursuant to § 1915, the Court may dismiss a complaint upon finding (1) the claims are 

frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) it seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It 

is appropriate for the Court to conduct this review sua sponte prior to issuance of process “so as to 

spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Having conducted this initial review, the Court finds that 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is not warranted at this stage of the litigation. 

The U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve Defendants with process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 9, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

SHARON E. SNYDER, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:17-cv-393

 

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(consent case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

(DOC. 24); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $5,650.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $5,650.00. Doc. 24. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the 

reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 24); 

and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $5,650.00. As no further matters remain 

pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 7/12/2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
';



### ·. SERVED: MARCH 15, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERh

...A 

### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of: Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

### FAA Docket No. 

### cPrro BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2011·0682**ORl>fi~R** 

### GRANTING J;:XTENSION OF TIME FOR**~'fLING** 

### OF POST-HEARING BRIEFS

Pursuant to 

### 14 C.P.R. § 13.213(a), Complainant 

### Federal Aviation Administration has agreed to the request ofRespondent Aviation Tech11ico.I Services, Inc. (ATS), for a one-week extension for the filing ofATS's Post-Hearing Brief. Accordingly, the Post-Hearing Briefing Schedule ln this matter is amended as follows: 1. 

### The Post-Hearing BriefofRcspondent Aviation 

### Technical Services, Inc., shall 

### be 1iled 

### on or

### before March 22, 2013. 2. The Rebuttal Briefofthe Federal Aviation Administration, ifany, shall be tiled on or before April 8, 2013.

# e_-~r~~ Richard C. Goodwin U.S. i\.dministralive Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

### ...

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 (Civil PenaltyAction) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk,**AGC~430** Wilbur Wright 

### Building --Suite 2Wl000* ONE COPY 

### Dane B. Jaques, 

### Esq., Respondent's Counsel McKenna Long & 

### Aldridge LLP 1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

### McLean, VA 22102 (FAX) (703) 336-8750 Karen D. 

### Huber, Complainant's Counsel SeniorAttorney 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAANorthwest 

### Mountain Region 1601 

### Lind Ave. SW Renton, WA 98057 (FAX) (425) 227·1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative Law Judge 

### Ol1ice ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave. SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202,;366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Staff

### Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536

li<Scrviuc was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier. usc lhc followiog addn:ss: Pcdc!'al Aviation Administration, 600 Indc(')endencc Ave. SW. Wilbur Wright Building -suite 2WI000, Wm;hington, DC 20591; Attention: Hcariltg Docket Clerk, AGC-4.30.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          501199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6726966
<ALLOWANCES>                                    677000
<INVENTORY>                                    3081643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9764657
<PP&E>                                          433328
<DEPRECIATION>                                  237259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                16069052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8485571
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         75581
<OTHER-SE>                                     7507900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  16069052
<SALES>                                       28121355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              28121355
<CGS>                                         23746297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 23746297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5370543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                230000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1003394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1003394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (140555)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1143949)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)


</TABLE>
#### People v Slusarski,

Nos. 90840, 90841;

Court of Appeals Nos. 130932, 131502.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 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 Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation 
Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: February 10, 2022.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G58, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Anuja Mathew, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G58, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-761-6911, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5949b809f94db9894819d9082b59b9c9ddb929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f6f9e2fdf6b9faf6e3fff2e0d7f9feffb9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 11, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00779 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-52

Judge Marbley

Michael Anthony Bowman 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 28) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1 and of the Indictment, and

he is hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer

the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: August 22, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
#### Kimery *v.*Shockley.

5-965

290 S. W. 2d 442

Opinion delivered May 21, 1956.

*Q. Byrum Hurst*and *C. A. Stanfield,*for appellant.

*Wood, Chesnutt*& *Smith*and *Clayton P. Farrar,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, J.

This is an action brought by the appellees, real estate brokers, to recover a commission of $1,050 under an exclusive listing contract by which the appellants employed the appellees to sell certain property. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The appellants concede that they would owe the commission if the property had been sold by the appellees or by any other broker, but they insist that under the particular wording of the contract they were entitled to sell the land themselves without liability to the brokers. The trouble with this argument is that the abbreviated record filed in this court contains nothing to show that the property was in fact sold by the owners themselves. When error appears in a record shortened without objection we are not to presume that the judgment is sup*438ported by the omitted matter, Ark. Stats. 1947, § 27-2127.6; but it goes without saying that when the abbreviated record is free from apparent error we cannot assume that the omitted matter would require a reversal of the judgment. .

Affirmed.
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.01


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 Dean Witter Global
Perspective Portfolio L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, 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 my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:	    	Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:   	President

Date:	    	May 17, 2004