alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
r . .**.- ~**  ..,.

' 

## i .:/

In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: March 25, 2016 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 NORTHEASTERN AVIATION CORPORATION ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2011EA110045 Respondent
NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION On April15, 2015 an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed, which noted that the location ofthe Hearing would be provided by separate Notice to the parties. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the**He~ng** in this case, set to begin on June 14,2016 at 9:00 a.m., will be held at the following location: United States District Court Eastern District OfNew York Long Island Courthouse 100 Federal Plaza Central Islip, New York 11722 The Hearing begins at 9:00a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please allow time to pass through security. Brief cases, purses, packages, and the like will be x-rayed. All individuals must present government issued identification to enter the courthouse.

Attachment: Service List 

### 'I· L' :- , • I
. c .)" J
... . ... Docket No. FAA-20 15-0206 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### 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 2W1 000 1

Ms. Camille J. Castillo 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3278 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. Edward J.Longosz, II Ms
. Evelyn D. Sahr 

### Respondent ' s Counsel ONE COPY

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin, & Mellot, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue , N.W. , Suite 1200 Washington, D
.C. 20006 TEL: 202-659-6619 I 202-659-6622 FAX: 202-659-6699 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings , M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Room E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366

-7536

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 2W1000 , Washington, DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430
.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Shamar Montgomery,

Plaintiff,

V.

City of Columbus, et al..

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cv-187

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

OPINION AND ORDER

On March 6, 2018, the Magistrate Judge Issued an order and report and

recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this action be dismissed and granting

Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. EOF No. 2. Although the parties

were advised of the right to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and of the

consequences offailing to do so, no objections have been filed.

The R&R, EOF No. 2, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This case is

DISMISSED. Plaintiff has waived his right to appeal by failing to file objections. See

Thomas v. Am, ATA U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d947 (6th

Cir. 1981).

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final JUDGMENT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Gary S. Titus,
Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an
exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Gary S. Titus                                         
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Gary S. Titus                                             
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief 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 SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, P. Thomas Jenkins, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Open Text Corporation; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange 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 registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986.] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 10, 2004
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 Quarterly Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1) 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 Trust.



|            |  |  |  |    |  |                                        
|----------- |  |  |  | -- |  | ---------------------------------------
|            |  |  |  |    |  | Southwest Bank,                        
|            |  |  |  |    |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|            |  |  | 
|May 5, 2015 |  |  |  | By |  | /s/ NANCY G. WILLIS                    
|            |  |  |  |    |  | Nancy G. Willis                        
|            |  |  |  |    |  | Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ANDRE WADE, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-1101 

 Petitioner, Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 v. 

WARDEN, BELMONT 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 On August 14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be 

dismissed. (ECF No. 14.) Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, 

and although the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time to for the filing of objections, no 

objections have been filed. 

 The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This 

action is hereby DISMISSED. 

Petitioner has waived his appeal by failing to file objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Therefore, the Court 

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley_______________

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DATED: November 30, 2018
**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 and 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/ Daniel                S. Laikin |
|         |                                                                               |
|         | By:                  Daniel S. LaikinChief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2005 |

|         |                                                                                          |                                       |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                          |
|    |                                                                                     |                                  |
|         | By:                                                                                 | /s/ Douglas                S. Bennett |
|         |                                                                                               |
|         | By:                  Douglas S. BennettPresident and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2005 |
Exhibit
  32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of Genta  Incorporated  (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  March  31,  2005 (the  Report),
I,  William P.  Keane,  Chief  Financial  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)  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.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  May 16,
2005

|/s/
      WILLIAM P. KEANE
|--------------------------
|Name:                     
|Title:                    

29

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

ISAAC J. CASTILE, III, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-226 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On March 29, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Initial 

Screen Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis be granted and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. (See Report and Recommendation, 

Doc. 3). 

The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order and Initial Screen Report 

and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order 

and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 4). The Court will consider the 

matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that his claims should not be barred by the statute of 

limitations based on the Court’s inherent authority to right a wrong and the power to award 

appropriate relief. However, Plaintiff has failed to assert how the Magistrate Judge’s 

conclusions were incorrect. The Court has carefully reviewed this matter and agrees with the 

findings of the Magistrate Judge. Despite all the legal arguments cited by Plaintiff regarding the 
2 

Court’s authority, the Court must still abide by the statute of limitations. The Court agrees that 

Plaintiff’s claims regarding events that occurred before March 12, 2016 are time barred. 

 Additionally, Plaintiff argues that his claims should not be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim because he is disabled and the tolling provisions apply. He does concede that he cannot 

get a doctor to independently dispute Defendants’ claims that they weren’t negligent. The Court 

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Plaintiff’s allegations are mere disagreements 

and second guessing the medication professionals judgment and do not set forth a viable Eighth 

Amendment claim. Therefore, the extent Plaintiff’s claims were timely; they are dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 Therefore, for the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Order and Initial 

Screen Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit 

and are hereby OVERRULED. 

The Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation, Document 3, is ADOPTED

and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 3 and 4 from the Court’s pending motions list. The 

Clerk shall terminate this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
----

|   | 1.     | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,      2007 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended      (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | 2.     | The      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company.                                                                                                                            |

|   | /s/ Mark H. Dunaway                        |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark      H. Dunaway                       |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer,              |   |
|   | President,      and Chief OperatingOfficer |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

MICHAEL POHL,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-19

District Judge Walter H. Rice 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Allowance of Attorney 

Fees. (Doc. #18). According to Plaintiff, although the Commissioner cannot consent to a 

fee under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), the Commissioner does not object to the reasonableness 

of the fee requested by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the total 

amount of $13,051.00. In the absence of opposition by the Commissioner, the Motion 

and supporting Exhibits establish that an award of attorney fees is reasonable and 

warranted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the amount the Motion seeks. 

In addition, the Court previously accepted the parties’ stipulation to an award of 

$3,300.00 in attorney fees to Plaintiff’s counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA). (Doc. #s 16, 17). The EAJA award, however, was subject to offset in the 

amount of any debt Plaintiff owed the Government. See Doc. #17. The current record 

Case: 3:18-cv-00019-WHR-SLO Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/18/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 723
2

does not indicate whether or not Plaintiff’s counsel actually received any of the EAJA 

award because of the potential offset. Counsel may not recover attorney fees under both 

the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for the same work. Plaintiff’s counsel must therefore 

return to Plaintiff the amount of EAJA fees, if any, he has actually received. See 

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Allowance of Attorney Fees (Doc. #18)

is GRANTED;

2. The Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the amount of $13,051.00;

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall refund to Plaintiff the amount of

attorney fees, if any, he has actually received under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (Doc. #17); and

4. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court.

Walter H. Rice

United States District Judge

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

09-18-2020 (tp - per Judge Rice 

authorization after his review)

Case: 3:18-cv-00019-WHR-SLO Doc #: 19 Filed: 09/18/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 724
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Michael J. Rhodus, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv314 

Chae Harris, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 

by the Magistrate Judge on December 17, 2019 (Doc. 24). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R 

(Doc. 24) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 24) of the Magistrate Judge is 

hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, 

plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED entirely for want of prosecution, for lack of service and for 

failure to obey an Order of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court