alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

5/22/2019

 Southern District of Ohio

Michael E. McGlothin

3:18-cv-52

Commissioner of Social Security

✔ Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED in full;Commissioner’s non-disability finding is vacated;

REMANDED to the Social Security Administration under sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);case is

terminated on the Court’s docket.

✔ Thomas M. Rose

Report and Recommendations
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20541

Summary Calendar

 

FELDON BONNER, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF HOUSTON; THE CITY OF HOUSTON POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CHARLES D. HURLEY; THOMAS LADD;

MILAN F. KARDATZE; JOHNNY MOORE; M.E. DOYLE;

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CARRIER,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-96-1113

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Feldon Bonner, II, appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion for a preliminary injunction. Bonner has not shown a

likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury

warranting a preliminary injunction, and the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Lakedreams v.
No. 96-20541

- 2 -

Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1991). The decision of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

Bonner has also moved this court to appoint counsel, to

conduct a hearing en banc on the denial of his motion for a

preliminary injunction, to direct the district court to conduct a

hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction, and to direct

the court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter,

766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Bonner’s motions are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

January 9, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-01014-CR

NO. 14-13-01015-CR

IN RE ESEQUIEL OCHOA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 983043 and 1026778

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 13, 2013, relator Esequiel Ochoa filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 

52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel one or more respondents 

whose identities are unclear to provide a copy of the record in relator’s underlying 

criminal cases at the State’s expense.
2

Our mandamus jurisdiction is limited. By statute, we have authority to issue 

a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in our court of 

appeals district, and as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. 

Gov’t Code § 22.221. Relator does not identify as a respondent a judge of a district 

or county court. Relator appears to direct his request for relief against the Harris 

County District Clerk, but also may be requesting relief against the Clerk of the 

Thirteenth Court of Appeals, the Clerk of this Court, the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, the Harris County District Attorney, relator’s appointed defense counsel, 

or some combination thereof. Regardless of which of the foregoing potential 

respondents are the intended respondents, issuance of the writ against any of these 

named parties is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no 

jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a). 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Fontaine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (1) | 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                                              
|James A. Fontaine                                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: July 29, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4624 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4624

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott 
                         Hartge Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPC NICHOLAS SCOTT HARTGE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge 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 ``SPC 
Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 9, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4624

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott 
                         Hartge Post Office''.
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 Annual Report of The Dwyer Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dina Dwyer-Owens,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) 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.

By: \s\ Dina Dwyer-Owens
    --------------------
Dina Dwyer-Owens
Chief Executive Officer
March 21, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
         been provided to The Dwyer Group, Inc. and will be retained by The
         Dwyer Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       15
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Asia Countries Co. W.L.L. Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) ASBCA No. 59947

No Appearance Entered APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: Daniel K. Poling, Esq. DLA ChiefTrial Attorney Robin E. Walters, Esq.

Trial Attorney DLA Disposition Services Battle Creek, MI ORDEROF DISMISSAL By email dated 18 April 2015, appellant filed a notice ofappeal which the Board docketed as ASBCA No. 59947. The email was sent from "acc@asiacountries.net" and closed with "WITH BEST REGARDS[,] Asia Countries Co W.L.L
...." No person was identified in the email. In its 22 April 2015 docketing notice, the Board directed appellant to showthat it is represented in this appeal by a person meeting the requirements ofBoard Rule 15 or designate a person meeting those requirements by 8 May 2015. The Boardreceived no response from appellant. On 28 May 2015, the Board issued an Order directing appellant to respond by 17 June 2015 and communicating the Board's intention to dismiss the appeal ifno response was received by that date. No response has been received by the Board to date. Without a representative meeting the requirements ofBoardRule 15, the Board is unable to proceed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Dated: 26 June 2015

(Signatures continued) "' Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI concur

MARKA. MELNICK Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals 

### RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCANo. 59947, Appeal ofAsia Countries Co. W.L.L., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 

### JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals
<PAGE>
                                                                    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, 333-124037 and 333-124038) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-66292,
333-45028, 333-108613, 333-113759 and 333-123591) on Form S-3 of Verso
Technologies, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2004, except as to note 5
which is as of March 16, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of Verso Technologies, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003 and the related financial
statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report
on Form 10-K of Verso Technologies, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4554 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4554

To reauthorize the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal 
            years 2011 through 2014, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2010

 Mr. Markey of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Welch, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 
    Michaud, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McMahon, Mr. 
 Capuano, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Hall of New York, 
  Mr. Hodes, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Frank of 
  Massachusetts, Ms. Sutton, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Ms. Eddie Bernice 
 Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Lynch, Mr. 
   Engel, and Mr. Loebsack) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
 the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal 
            years 2011 through 2014, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Assistance for American 
Families Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF LIHEAP.

    Section 2602(b) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 
1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2001, and'' and inserting ``2001,''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``2007'' the following: ``, and 
        $7,600,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014. 
        Notwithstanding section 2605(b)(2)(B)(ii), a State may use any 
        allotment from funds appropriated under this subsection for 
        fiscal years 2011 through 2014 to provide assistance to 
        households whose income does not exceed 75 percent of the State 
        median income''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Elizabeth Ross v. The Highway Commissioners of the Township of Taylor.

*Certiorari: Petition: Return: Notice: Presumptions.*‘Where in the petition Tor *certiorari*to bring up for review proceedings to vacate a highway, it is’averred that, so far as the petitioner was informed on the subject, no notice of the proceedings was given, and the return fails to indicate that any notice was given to the petitioner or to any one, it must be assumed that there was none.

*Proceedings to vacate highways: Notice.*Notice being clearly required by the statute *{Comp. L. 1871,*§ *1258)*to be given in such proceedings to owners and occupants, proceedings without such notice are wholly void. *302This statutory regulation is one which is necessary to protect landowners and'residents from very serious losses and Inconvenience; and the failure to comply with it is nob a mere formal defect, hut a substantial wrong, going directly to the validity of the procedure.

*Submitted on briefs June 17,*

*Decided June 18.*

*Certiorari*to Highway Commissioners of Taylor.

*Henry M. Gheever,*for plaintiff in *certiorari.*

No counsel appeared for defendants in *certiorari.*

Campbell, J:

The relator brings up for review certain proceedings to vacate a highway, whereby she is deprived of access to her lands. Various' defects of description, and other irregularities, are pointed out, but it is no.t necessary to consider them, as a more serious objection appears, that defeats the jurisdiction of the commissioners.

It is averred in the petition for *certiorari*that there was no notice given, actual or constructive, so far as petitioner was informed on the subject. The attention of the respondents being called to this subject, and there being nothing in the return indicating that any notice was given to petitioner, or to any one, it must be assumed that there was none. If so, the proceedings were wholly void, as the statute is clear that notice must be given to owners and occupants in the manner pointed out, and petitioner being a resident owner and occupant was entitled to personal *notice.*— C. *L.,*§ *1253.*

It is somewhat unusual to take such important steps without being careful to afford every one interested an opportunity to be heard, both on the propriety of the measure proposed, and the effect it will have on private property. The statutory regulation is one which is necessary to preserve land-owners and residents from very serious losses and inconvenience. The failure to comply with this rule is not a formal defect, but a substantial wrong, and cannot be disregarded. It goes directly to the validity of the procedure. *303—See *People v. Highway Commissioners of Nankin, 14 Mich., 528; Van Auken v. Highway Commissioners, etc., 27 Mich., 414; Brush v. Detroit, supra p. 43.*

The proceedings must be quashed.

The other Justices concurred.
amend_swirhun.htm


     

    


    October
21, 2008

    


    


    To:  Stan
Swirhun

    


    In
recognition of your contributions to Zarlink, we are pleased to tell you that we
are increasing your salary.  The increase will be effective October
27, 2008 and you will see it reflected on your pay as of November 14,
2008.  To summarize:

    


    Your
current annual salary
is:                                                                             
$275,000 USD

    Your new
annual salary will
be:                                                                           $300,000
USD

    


    In
addition, you will continue to be eligible for participation in the Zarlink
Bonus Plan at target of 50% of base salary providing you a total target cash of
$450,000.

    


    Congratulations!  We
look forward to your continued contributions to Zarlink’s success.  If
you need any further information, please contact Eileen Speirs or
myself.  We’ll be happy to answer your questions.

    


    Sincerely,

    
 

    


    /s/ Kirk Mandy


    Kirk
Mandy

    President  &
CEO                                                                           

    Zarlink
Semiconductor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RICK E. NEWMAN,

Plaintiff

v. C-1-01-67

PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO.,et al

Defendant

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that

the above action has been settled as to all claims;

IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED with

prejudice, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause

shown within 30 days, reopen the action if settlement is not

consummated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____s/Herman J. Weber____________

Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 108 Filed 08/12/2004 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99



Report of Independent Public Accountants




To Applied Bioscience International Inc. and Subsidiaries:

         We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Applied Bioscience
International Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 31,
1995 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1995
prior to the restatement (and, therefore, are not presented herein) for the
merger accounted for as a pooling of interests transaction as described in Note
2 to the restated financial statements. These consolidated financial statements
are the responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our
audits.

         We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

         In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Applied
Bioscience International Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the two years in
the period ended December 31, 1995, in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.


                                                          /s/ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Washington, DC
February 22, 1996
amend_swift.htm


    
 

    July 24,
2008

    


    


    To:  Steve
Swift

    


    In
recognition of your contributions to Zarlink, we are pleased to tell you that we
are increasing your salary.  The increase will be effective July 28,
2008 and you will see it reflected on your pay as of August 8,
2008.  To summarize:

    


    Your
current annual salary
is:                                                                             
$250,000 USD

    Your new
annual salary will
be:                                                                           $300,000
USD

    


    In
addition, you will continue to be eligible for participation in the Zarlink
Bonus Plan at target of 50% of base salary providing you a total target cash of
$450,000.

    


    Congratulations!  We
look forward to your continued contributions to Zarlink’s success.  If
you need any further information, please contact Eileen Speirs or
myself.  We’ll be happy to answer your questions.

    


     

    Sincerely,

     

    


    
/s/ Kirk Mandy

    Kirk
Mandy

    President  &
CEO                                                                           

    Zarlink
Semiconductor
August 19, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

From: William H. Maxwell 

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) 

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 

Subject: Meeting with Luminant 

Attendees: 

Robert J. Wayland, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD 

Bill Maxwell, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD 

Nick Hutson, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD 

Shawn Glacken, Luminant 

Usha-Marie Turner, Luminant 

Discussion: 

A general discussion of the comments submitted by Luminant on the proposed Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards was held.