alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ABUBAKAR AHMED,
Case No. 2:17-cv-1147

Plaintiff, CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.
HART LOGISTICS, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s April 2, 2018
Initial Screen Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's
claims. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within
fourteen days would result in a waiver of review. The time period for objections has run, and no
party has objected. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 9), and for the reasons set forth in that document, the Court

DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Y-As -Loig DX.
DATE EDMUND AS SARGUS, JR.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.I., A MINOR

PETITION OF: ROBERT S. HORWITZ, 

ESQUIRE

:

:

:

:

:

No. 73 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6

th day of November, 2023, in consideration of the Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel, the matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County for it to determine whether to permit Attorney Robert S. Horwitz to 

withdraw. If the court permits Attorney Horwitz to withdraw, it is to appoint new counsel, 

who is experienced in this area of the law, to represent N.L. for allocatur review. 

As this is a Children’s Fast Track matter, the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to enter its order on remand within 14 days and to 

promptly notify this Court of its determination.
Exhibit 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT
                         CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

      I, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Genta
Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.
---------------------------------
Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
----

----

|   | **EXHIBIT                32** |
|--------|-------------------------------|

**CERTIFICATION      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) 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. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Ronald M. DinerRonald                M. DinerPresidentRaymond                James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.(Managing                General Partner)November                14, 2007                                            |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| /s/                Jonathan OorlogJonathan                OorlogVice                President and Chief Financial OfficerRaymond                James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.(Managing                General Partner)November                14, 2007 |

----
<PAGE>

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
of Eltrax Systems, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-37013) and on Form S-8 
(File No. 333-26015) of our report dated March 26, 1998 on our audits of the 
consolidated financial statements of Eltrax Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 
1997 and 1996, and for the year ended December 31, 1997, and the nine month 
transition period ended December 31, 1996, which report is included in this 
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
------------------------------------
    Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Detroit, Michigan
March 26, 1998
Home > About NRC > Radiation Protection > Radiation and Its Health Effects > Measuring Radiation

Measuring Radiation

There are four different but interrelated units for measuring radioactivity, exposure, absorbed dose, and

dose equivalent. These can be remembered by the mnemonic R-E-A-D, as follows, with both common

(British, e.g., Ci) and international (metric, e.g., Bq) units in use:

Radioactivity refers to the amount of ionizing radiation released by a material. Whether it emits alpha

or beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, or neutrons, a quantity of radioactive material is expressed in

terms of its radioactivity (or simply its activity), which represents how many atoms in the material

decay in a given time period. The units of measure for radioactivity are the curie (Ci) and becquerel

(Bq).

Exposure describes the amount of radiation traveling through the air. Many radiation monitors measure

exposure. The units for exposure are the roentgen (R) and coulomb/kilogram (C/kg).

Absorbed dose describes the amount of radiation absorbed by an object or person (that is, the amount of

energy that radioactive sources deposit in materials through which they pass). The units for absorbed

dose are the radiation absorbed dose (rad) and gray (Gy).

Dose equivalent (or effective dose) combines the amount of radiation absorbed and the medical effects

of that type of radiation. For beta and gamma radiation, the dose equivalent is the same as the absorbed

dose. By contrast, the dose equivalent is larger than the absorbed dose for alpha and neutron radiation,

because these types of radiation are more damaging to the human body. Units for dose equivalent are

the roentgen equivalent man (rem) and sievert (Sv), and biological dose equivalents are commonly

measured in 1/1000th of a rem (known as a millirem or mrem).

For practical purposes, 1 R (exposure) = 1 rad (absorbed dose) = 1 rem or 1000 mrem (dose equivalent).

Note that a measure given in Ci tells the radioactivity of a substance, while a measure in rem (or mrem)

tells the amount of energy that a radioactive source deposits in living tissue. For example, a person would

receive a dose equivalent of 1 mrem from any one of the following activities:

3 days of living in Atlanta

2 days of living in Denver

1 year of watching television (on average)

1 year of wearing a watch with a luminous dial

1 coast-to-coast airline flight

1 year living next door to a normally operating nuclear power plant

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, June 28, 2013
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. 99-51190 Summary Calendar

In the Matter Of: ROUNDVILLE PARTNERS L L C,

Debtor

ROUNDVILLE PARTNERS L L C,

Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN M JONES; FRANKIE SUE
JONES, Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

(A-99-CV-617)

May 29, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roundville appeals the district court’s affirmance of the

bankruptcy court’s denial of relief under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).

This suit arose out of a contract gone sour in which the Joneses

were to sell five lots of property to Roundville. Initially, the

parties planned to conduct the sale through a single contract.

Later, the Joneses requested that the contract be executed in two

stages for tax purposes, selling some property first and the rest2

of the lots in a second contract. Because of zoning requirements,

the two stages ended up with lopsided value: Roundville was to pay

more for the first-stage contract than that property was worth and

less under the second-stage contract than that property was worth.

The total price, however, was equivalent to the amount specified in

the original contract.

When the Jones es refused to execute the second stage,

Roundville was left having paid more for the first stage property

than it was worth considered on its own. Roundville took two steps

in response. It filed a state court action seeking specific

performance of the second-stage contract. After filing Chapter 11

proceedings, it also filed an adversary proceeding for fraudulent

transfer in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B).

The bankruptcy court held that Roundville either was not made

insolvent by or had received equivalent value for the Contract 2

closing because it became the beneficial owner of Contract 3. The

court reasoned that Contract 3 had va lue despite the Joneses’

refusal to clos e because of Roundville’s state court cause of

action. The district court affirmed, and Roundville appealed.

Having reviewed the pleadings and bankruptcy court’s opinion

in this matter, we are persuaded that there was no clear error in

the bankruptcy court’s determination. In light of the value of

Contract 3, Roundville cannot satisfy the requirements of § 548.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
DONALD L. VANDYK, Case No. 1:17-cv-785
Plaintiff, Litkovitz, MJ
vs.
CENTRAL USA WIRELESS, et al., ORDER
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Court Approval of
Settlement (Doc. 21) and the hearing on the motion held on March 8, 2019. The Joint Motion asks
the Court to approve as fair and reasonable the proposed settlement of this case as memorialized in
the parties’ Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”).

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and eliminates the cost and
uncertainty of further litigation of Plaintiff's claims, including Plaintiff's unpaid overtime claim. The
settlement satisfies the standard for approval of settlements under §16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. §216(b), and resolves the potential for a bona fide dispute under the FLSA and/or
applicable Ohio law.

Accordingly, having reviewed the Settlement Agreement and the pleadings and papers on file
in this case, and for good cause established therein, the Court enters this Order approving the
settlement of this matter, including the settlement payments, as such terms are set forth in the parties’
Settlement Agreement.

The Court expressly and explicitly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement of

the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:_ 33/4 Lin x Setter
Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge
Aprill2, 2013

SUBJECT: ESA for Miles City, Montana; DocketDOS-OST-1997-2605 TO: Department ofTransportation, Office ofSecretary WestBuilding Ground FloorW-12-140 1200NewJerseyAvenue SE WashingtonDC 20590; 3 FROM: Mark 

### K. Petersen 

### 18 

## 2b

You are very strongly encouraged to continue Essential Air Service to the Montana Communities of Miles City and Lewistown. The reduction in passengers in the last 2 years causing our subsidy per passenger to float above the·maximum target is not a function ofa failing community orlack ofdemand but a consequence ofpoor service by Sliver Airlines. Our passenger numbers have dropped 75% (1000+ in 2010 to 300+ in 2012) in 2 years due to a change in airlines providing service. Do not penalize our community for a bad business model implementedby SilverAirlines. Ifyou were goingto visityourneighbors in the house next doorwouldyou drive your car?No you would not. That is the situation we are in with Silver Airlines. They want Miles City and surrounding community residents to fly to Billings (our neighbor community). Ittakes.more time to fly to Billings and catch another plane than it takes to drive to the airport.in Billings. 

### In 2010 we could depart on a flight to Denver a 5:00am and make a connecting flight in Denver to arrive anywhere in the USA to make a same day meeting. We are a thriving community with many needs due to the diversity ofour economy and the mounting impact ofenergy development. We need a functional airport, airlines and schedules. 

### Ifwe had all of these characteristics we would not have an EAS prohibited per passenger subsidy today. Our communities need functional air service as part of our economic lifeline and medical services for our citizens as we had shown in 2010. Thank you for considering ourrequest to NOT enforce the Order ofShow Cause atthis time and give the EAS task force time to work on this problem. We believe a solution to this problem can be found for communities in ourEAS area.
Sincerelyyours,

Mark Petersen
Mark K Petersen, PhD
· 95 Green Acres Dr., Miles

### City, MT59301 406-234-4098 and bearpausel@comcast.net
# r--6--6f

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0125 JADA KU, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. GREAT FALLS COLLEGE MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant and Appellee. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Thomas Anthony Marra,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this June 6, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Jada Ku, 300 56 th Street South, Great Falls, MT 59405 Brandy Jennifer Glad, jenniferglad@montana.edu Thomas Anthony Marra , tmarra@marralawfirm.com 06/06/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0125
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

PROPOSED ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Status Report, in which the parties 

represent their agreement to resolve Plaintiffs’ fee motion regarding attorneys’ fees and costs for 

$380,000. 

The parties are ORDERED to file their joint proposed consent judgment by August 20, 

2021. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

_____________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

STACIE RAY, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STEPHANIE McCLOUD, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:18-cv-00272 

Judge: Michael Watson 

Magistrate Judge: Chelsey Vascura 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case: 2:18-cv-00272-MHW-CMV Doc #: 99-1 Filed: 08/09/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 3332
SERVED: November 16, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF 

WASHINGTON, DC TRANSPORTATIO 

201~ NOV 11 A I: 5 q 

In The Matter Of: 

Docket No. FAA-2J\q~l)~l OPERATIONS 

Pacific International Skydiving Center 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP130012 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS 

On July 1, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Finalizing Litigation Schedule in the 

above captioned case, requiring that any subpoena requests be submitted to the undersigned 

judge no later than November 14, 2016. 

On November 12, 2016, the Respondent filed a request for subpoenas for ten witnesses. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. § 13.205(a)(3), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1) The Respondent's request for subpoenas is granted. 

2) The individual subpoenas are attached for the Respondent's counsel to serve. 

~~---- DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachments: 

1. Service List 

2. Subpoenas 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

P.O. Box 387 

Tavares, FL 32778 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

8900 SW 107th Avenue, Suite 203 

Miami, FL 33176 

TEL: 305-598-4841 

FAX: 305-598-4842 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAJ<: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ<: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
CERTIFICATION

I, Ivo Heiden, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of Zaxis International Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the  issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the  issuer's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2011

/s/ Ivo HeidenCEO, CFO and Chairman
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      Dr.
      David F. Hostelley, Chief Financial Officer of Organetix, Inc. (the "Company"),
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, that:





(1)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date:
      November 20, 2006





/s/
      Dr. David F. Hostelley


Dr.
      David
      F. Hostelley


Chief
      Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**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 Element 21 Golf Company (the “Registrant”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Nataliya Hearn,
      Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, and John Grippo, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, 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 our knowledge and belief:





(1)
            The
                Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                of the
                Registrant.




Date:
                October 4, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Nataliya HearnNataliya
                Hearn, Ph.D.President,
                Chief Executive Officer and
                Director




Date:
                October 4, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                John
                GrippoJohn
                  GrippoChief
                  Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by
      the
      Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.





*****