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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS

TIMOTHY WOOGERD, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 2:18-cv-104 

- vs - District Judge Michael H. Watson 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

LYNEAL WAINRIGHT, Warden, 

 Marion Correctional Institution 

 : 

 Respondent. 

DECISION AND ORDER 

 

 This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Supplemental Report and Recommendations” (Doc. No. 33). The document was received 

by the Clerk on January 28, 2019. Based on Woogerd’s Certificate of Service, the Court takes 

January 22, 2019, as the date the document was deposited in the prison mail system and therefore 

its effective date of filing under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).1

 The Supplemental Report and Recommendations to which the Objections apply was filed 

and served on October 30, 2018 (ECF No. 27). Woogerd was notified in the Supplemental Report 

that his time to file objections would expire seventeen days thereafter or on November 17, 2018. 

Id. at PageID 2397. He did indeed file Objections to the Supplemental Report November 15, 2018 

(ECF No. 28, PageID 2407). 

 

1

 Although Woogerd claims it was sent by certified mail on January 22, 2019, the envelope in which it was received 

shows it was sent by ordinary mail (ECF No. 33-2). 
2 

 On January 8, 2019, Petitioner sought leave to expand his objections. but the Court denied 

that Motion (ECF Nos. 31, 32). Now Petitioner has filed further Objections without court 

permission. 

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 sets a limit of fourteen days on time for objections, extended to seventeen 

days when served by mail. But the Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a litigant to expand that 

time merely by filing late. 

 The instant Objections (ECF No. 33) are STRICKEN. 

January 28, 2019. 

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge
#### *In re*Application of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company for Approval of a Price Change, Dart Oil & Gas Corporation v Public Service Commission (Antrim v Public Service Commission),

No. 90796;

reported below: 186 Mich App 668.
##### 



Exhibit 32.02
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
 Date: February 27, 2008
    
    /s/ Harold CovertHarold L. CovertChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 82

John Clark Bridges, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

Nos. 20210351 & 20210352

Appeals from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner and appellant; 

submitted on brief.

Tessa M. Vaagen, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for respondent 

and appellee; submitted on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

APRIL 14, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Bridges v. State

Nos. 20210351 & 20210352

Per Curiam.

[¶1] John Bridges appeals from district court orders summarily dismissing

his applications for postconviction relief as untimely and for lack of a genuine 

issue of material fact. Bridges argues he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing 

because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his claims of 

newly discovered evidence. We conclude that Bridges’ applications for 

postconviction relief were not filed within the two-year statute of limitations

under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2). We further conclude he has failed to raise a 

genuine issue of material fact of newly discovered evidence, which if proved 

and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that he did 

not engage in the criminal conduct for which he was convicted. See N.D.C.C. 

§ 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(1); Johnson v. State, 2015 ND 7, ¶ 7, 858 N.W.2d 632.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; 
Revised--Notice of Open Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee 
(SITAC) will meet on January 25, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard 
Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions 
that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and 
instrumentation equipment and technology.

Agenda

Public Session

1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference on a first 
come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to 
Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than 
January 18, 2022.
    To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present 
oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written 
statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to 
facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the 
Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be 
forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-00764 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
```
#### PETERSON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Barbara Kay FARMER

85-246

705 S.W.2d 8

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 3, 1986

[Rehearing denied April 14, 1986.*]

*Ernest G. Lawrence,*by: *Blaine A. Jackson,*for appellant.

*Boyce R. Davis,*for appellee.

*

 Purtle, J., not participating.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

This appeal asks us to reaffirm our rule that when a contract of employment does not bind the employee to serve for a specified time, the contract may be terminated at will by either party. See *Gaulden*v. *Emerson Electric Co.,*284 Ark. 149, 680 S.W.2d 92 (1984). We are unable to reach the merits of the appeal because the appellant has failed to abstract all pertinent parts of the record; therefore, we affirm. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 9 (d).

*299Barbara Kaye Farmer, the appellee, was terminated by the appellant, Peterson Industries. The reason given by the company was that Farmer had been absent for over two days without notification in violation of the policy set forth in the company handbook. At the time of her absence, she was hospitalized because of recurring pain from a previously sustained back injury for which she had received workers’ compensation benefits. Farmer sued the appellant alleging wrongful discharge. At trial the following instruction was given:

> If you find that Barbara Kaye Farmer was fired by Peterson’s, Inc., in direct violation of the company’s own policies or for the reason that she had filed or was pursuing a Workers’ Compensation claim, then you should find for the plaintiff, Barbara Kaye Farmer.

The trial court gave the instruction because of our previous indications that we would consider modifying our position on the employment-at-will doctrine. See *Gaulden*v. *Emerson Electric Co.,*supra;*Jackson*v. *Kinark Corp.,*282 Ark. 548, 669 S.W.2d 898 (1984). The jury returned a verdict for Farmer for $10,000. The appellant argues (1) that the instruction was error; (2) that there was insufficient evidence to find that Farmer was fired in retaliation for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim; and (3) that the damages were computed erroneously.

It is the duty of the appellant to furnish us with an abridgement of the record sufficient to understand the matters presented. *Dyke Industries, Inc.*v. *Johnson Const. Co.,*261 Ark. 790, 551 S.W.2d 217 (1977); *Collins*v. *Duncan,*257 Ark. 722, 520 S.W.2d 192 (1975). Our rule 9 (d) requires affirmance because the appellant failed to abstract the employee handbook or its objection to the instruction complained of, and also failed to abstract much of the testimony required to review the second and third points of its argument.

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF INTEREP NATIONAL RADIO SALES, INC.



|                                           |  |                      |  |                                                             
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Name                                       |  | State ofOrganization |  | Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business                   
|                                           |  |                     
|Allied Radio Partners, Inc.                |  | New York             |  | Allied Radio Partners Concert Music Network                 
|                                           |  |                     
|American Radio Sales, Inc.                 |  | New York             |  | American Radio Sales ABC Radio Sales                        
|                                           |  |                     
|Azteca America Spot Television Sales, Inc. |  | New York             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|Cybereps, Inc.                             |  | Delaware             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|D&R Radio, Inc.                            |  | New York             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|Infinity Radio Sales, Inc.                 |  | New York             |  | Infinity Radio Sales Infinity Sports CBS Radio Sales        
|                                           |  |                     
|Interactive Video Network, Inc.            |  | Delaware             |  | IVN                                                         
|                                           |  |                     
|Interep Interactive, Inc.                  |  | Delaware             |  | Interep Interactive Winstar Interactive Perfect Circle Media
|                                           |  |                     
|Interep New Media, Inc.                    |  | New York             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|McGavren Guild, Inc.                       |  | New York             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|Morrison and Abraham, Inc.                 |  | New York             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|Public Radio Network, Inc.                 |  | New York             |  | Same                                                        
|                                           |  |                     
|SBS/Interep LLC                            |  | New York             |  | SBS/Interep Caballero Spanish Media
##### 



Exhibit 32.01
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
 Date: February 27, 2008
    
    /s/ Steve TiradoSteve TiradoPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Case: 1:18-mj-00139-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 03/01/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,071,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,055,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100,000
<INVENTORY>                                     11,058,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,275,000
<PP&E>                                           1,840,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     830,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,181,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,535,000
<BONDS>                                         15,047,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           351,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,248,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,181,000
<SALES>                                         12,101,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,101,000
<CGS>                                            7,214,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,214,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,349,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,676,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (138,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (147,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (147,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.06)
        

</TABLE>
From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov <Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov> 

To: King, Heidi R. 

Cc: Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov <Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov>; 

Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov <Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov>; Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov 

<Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov>; Weinstock.Lewis@epamail.epa.gov 

<Weinstock.Lewis@epamail.epa.gov> 

Sent: Wed Jan 26 16:54:57 2011

Subject: Answers to your cost questions on the CO NAAQS monitoring network 

Heidi, 

Please find below a redline version of the EO section of the CO NAAQS package which addresses the 

cost of the monitoring network. Deirdre thoughtfully created both a pdf and Word version, as we weren't 

sure which you would like. In addition, Nealson provided the following information to answer your 

question, which apparently would not otherwise be answered in the ICR:

The ICR requires creating an estimate for operation of the entire network. This estimate as an 

annual average reporting burden for the collection under 40 CFR part 58 (averaged over the first 

3 years of this ICR) for a network of 311 CO monitors is $7,235,483. The portion of this cost 

specifically attributable to installing/relocating existing CO monitors at an estimated 75 new 

near-road NO2 sites, is estimated to be $8728 per year. For purposes of calculating the annual 

cost of the network, the relocation cost for these 75 monitors was amortized over 7 years. Thus 

the total cost for installing/relocating is $61,098.

Please let me know if you have any other questions about the CO network costs. If not, could you let me 

know when you might clear the package? Thanks very much. I hope you are not having travel difficulties 

because of the snow. 

Lydia
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0212

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

LOUIS TED CAYE,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant Louis Ted Caye was granted an extension of time to file and serve the 

opening brief on or before August 14, 2023. The opening brief is now overdue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the 

opening brief on appeal no later than September 14, 2023. Failure to file the brief within 

that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 28 2023

08/28/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0212
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RANJIT RASAILY,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendant(s).

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:17-cv-193

Judge George C. Smith 

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

ORDER

The Parties are DIRECTED to file a written report with the Court regarding the

status of this case within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 30, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

ELIZABETH PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00193-GCS-EPD Doc #: 29 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 400
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

1.   Molecular Devices GmbH, a corporation organized under the Laws of Germany.

2.   Molecular Devices Ltd., a corporation organized under the Laws of England
     and Wales.

3.   Molecular Devices Skatron, a corporation organized under the Laws of
     Norway.

4.   Nihon Molecular Devices, a corporation organized under the Laws of Japan.

5.   Cytion S.A., a corporation organized under the Laws of Switzerland.

6.   LJL BioSystems, a corporation organized under the Laws of Delaware.

7.   LJL BioSystems, Ltd., a corporation organized under the Laws of England and
     Wales.

8.   Universal Imaging Corporation, a corporation organized under the Laws of
     Pennsylvania.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2022

No. 04-22-00326-CV

Zulema J. GARZA,

Appellant

v.

Zulema J. GARZA, Jose Juan Garza, II, Andres Garza, Alejandro Garza, and Gabriel Garza,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CVK-002209-D1

Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due by July 11, 2022, but it was not filed. On July 29, 2022, 

we ordered the court reporter to file the record by August 24, 2022. On September 1, 2022, the 

court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension until September 12, 

2022. After consideration, we grant the court reporter’s request for an extension, and we order

the court reporter to file the record by September 12, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of September, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-17-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,970
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,571
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (  399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (  399)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.001)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NEIL KAUFMAN,

Appellant,

v.

JACQUELINE KAUFMAN,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2088 

[July 29, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Dina Keever-Agrama, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-DR004892-XXXX-NB.

Adam B. Swickle of Swickle & Associates, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, KUNTZ, JJ., and FAHNESTOCK, FABIENNE E., Associate Judge, 

concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.