alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-83 (1)

Judge Marbley

Salome Aguiar Alarcon 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 43) that the

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

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: October 12, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID S. IRVIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### City of Fayetteville *v.*Stone.

4-4685

Opinion delivered June 14, 1937.

*Price Dickson,*for appellant.

*W. N. Ivie,*for appellees.

Butlee, J.

This suit was instituted by the appellees against the appellant to recover damages for the taking of a certain parcel of their lands for the purpose of widening, straightening and paving the west end of Wall street in the city of Fayetteville. Upon testimony adduced by the respective parties, the cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the appellees in the sum of $540.

Two questions are presented upon appeal. The first is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict under the rule announced in *Weidemeyer*v. *Little Rock,*157 Ark. 5, 247 S. W. 62, which reaffirms that announced in *Cribbs*v. *Benedict,*64 Ark. 555, 44 S. W. 707, that where the public use for which a portion of one’s land is taken so enhances the value of the remainder as to make it of greater value than the whole was before the taking, the owner in such case has received just compensation and benefit, and the benefits thus considered must be those which are local, peculiar and special to the owner’s land.

After the trial count had heard the testimony in the case he personally inspected the property alleged to have been damaged, and it is argued that the view by the court was not of itself sufficient to enable it to determine the damage. While this may be true, the view made by the *219court was proper in that it was thus enabled to understand and analyze the testimony of the witnesses with respect to the situation. The testimony relating to the damage sustained is in irreconcilable conflict, both as to the benefits to the land by reason of the improvement and the damage sustained when these benefits are considered. It is unnecessary to set out this evidence in detail. Suffice it to say, that when the local and special benefits are considered the evidence adduced by the appellees is ample to sustain the judgment of the trial court.

It is finally urged for reversal that the trial court erred in its procedure relating to the production of testimony. This contention is based upon the fact that after the appellees had closed their testimony in chief they were allowed to introduce certain other witnesses whose testimony was not in the nature of rebuttal, but, if admissible at all, should have' been introduced before appellees closed their case. If it is conceded that the testimony of these witnesses was of the nature contended for by the appellant, no reversible error was committed by the trial judge in allowing it to be irregularly introduced. The matter of permitting the introduction of testimony out of time is one within the discretion of the trial court, and it is only where there is a manifest abuse of this discretion which results in injury to the party complaining that the action of the trial court will be reviewed. *Chunn*v. *London L.*& *F. Ins.*Co., 124 Ark. 327, 187 S. W. 307; *Harger*v. Harger, 144 Ark. 375, 222 S. W. 736.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is correct, and is, therefore, affirmed.
Exhibit




AMENDMENT TO THE
SEVERANCE AND CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, KBR, Inc. (“KBR”) desires to amend the Severance and Change in Control Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into by and between Executive, Executive’s employer, and KBR to reflect the most prevalent practice of KBR’s industry peers and to address the difficulty of valuing KBR’s long-term cash performance awards prior to the end of the performance period due to the new job income sold performance metric;


NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of August 5, 2015, the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


Paragraph (v) of Section 4.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted therefor:


“(v) all performance award units granted prior to January 1, 2015, other than those that are covered under Company’s annual cash incentive plan, shall be prorated to the date of termination and paid on actual performance at the end of the performance period, but not later than March 15th following the end of the performance period, and all performance award units granted on or after to January 1, 2015, other than those that are covered under Company’s annual cash incentive plan, shall become fully vested and paid at target performance as soon as administratively feasible following Executive’s termination of employment with Company, but not later than March 15th following the year in which Executive terminated employment with Company;”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed on this _____ day of _______________ 2015, effective as provided above.






By:     
    
Name:     
    
Title:     
    
KBR, Inc.






By:     
    
Name:     
    
Title:     
    
Executive
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification****Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Orchid BioSciences, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Quarterly    Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”)    of the Company    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company.

|   | Dated: August      14, 2003 | /s/      Paul J. Kelly                          |
|--------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   |                        | Paul J.      Kelly, M.D.                        |
|   |                        | Chief      Executive Officer                    |
|   |                        |                                            |
|   |                        |                                            |
|   | Dated: August      14, 2003 | /s/      Michael E. Spicer                      |
|   |                        | Michael      E. Spicer                          |
|   |                        | Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer |

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

 

----
#### Brady vs. Hamlett.

1. Decree: *When it becomes absolute.*

A final decree becomes absolute upon the expiration of the term at which it is rendered, and the court cannot of its own motion, or by consent of parties, open it at a subsequent term, for rehearing;; an order entered at the term at which the decree is rendered, granting leave to file a petition for rehearing at the succeeding term, will not keep it within the control of the court. The decree should be opened and the cause continued.

APPEAL from *Bradley*Circuit Court.

Hon. Peter Moseley, Special Judge.

*McCain,*for appellant.

ENGLISH, Ch. J.:

John Brady brought ejectment against Thomas F. Hamlett, for possession of two forty acre tracts of land, in the Circuit Court of Bradley County. He claimed title'under Auditor’s tax deeds, which recited that the lands were forfeited to the State for non-payment of taxes of 1863. Hamlett filed an answer and cross-complaint in the nature of a *quia timet*bill, alleging that he paid the taxes charged on the lands for the year 1863, and that they were returned forfeited by mistake, and praying that the Auditor’s deed be cancelled, and he quieted in his possession. On his motion the cause was trans*106ferred to the equity side of the court; heard upon the pleadings and evidence at the September Term, 1875, and decree in favor of Hamlett as prayed in his cross-complaint.

After the decree was entered, an order was made that Brady have leave until the first day of the next term to enter a petition for re-hearing.

On the first day of the March Term, 1876, Brady asked for further time to file a petition for re-hearing, and was granted leave to file it on any day of that term.

At the same term there is an entry stating that, by consent of parties, the court ordered that the decree rendered at the previous term be opened for rehearing, and the cause continued.

The cause was again heard at the September Term, 1876, and the same decree was rendered as on the former hearing, and Brady appealed.

The evidence introduced upon the hearing, and put upon record by bill of exceptions, conduced to prove that Hamlett paid to the Collector the taxes charged upon the lands, for the year 1868, but we cannot consider the merits- of the case on this appeal.

The decree rendered in the court below at the September Term, 1875, was final. If the court desired to grant appellant time until the next term to file a motion for a rehearing, it should have opened the decree, and continued the cause, so as to prevent the decree from becoming absolute on the expiration of the term, and kept it within its control. But this was not done, and hence on the close of the term, the court lost its power over the decree, and could not, of its own motion, or by consent of parties, open the decree for a new hearing, at a subsequent term of the court; hence all of the proceedings subsequent" to the decree rendered at the September Term, 1875, were *coram non judice.*

*107
      *Mayor etc.,*v. *Bullock,*6 Ark., 282; *Rawdon*v. *Rapley,*14 Ark., 203.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRST 
QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,767,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,898,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                   957,397
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,735,923
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,976,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,515,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,976,433
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,303,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,071,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                87,367
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,038,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                232,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   232,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FILED

ISHAY-9 AM 10: 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

SHARON L. OVINGTO!
United States of America, naney TED STATES .
TRATE SUNGE
Plaintiff,
Case 3:18-cr-20
-vs- Magistrate Judge Ovington

Percy Adams, Jr,

Defendant.

ORDER

On oral motion of the United States in open court, pursuant to the plea agreement of the
parties and Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(e), and with the Defendant’s consent, the charge of Possession of
Drugs, in violation of 21 U.S.C., Section 844 made in Count One of the Information is hereby
AMENDED to a charge of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a 4'" Degree misdemeanor, in

violation of the Ohio Revised Code, Section 2925.14 (C)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/9/, g Aon KE A
United States Magistrate Midge
Alive, jipfarnr—$_

Asfistant United States Attorney
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 

Respondents. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on June 4, 2018 (Doc. 4). 

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 Report 

and Recommendation have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) of 

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

the Magistrate Judge, the claims in the Complaint (Doc. 1) are dismissed pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. '' 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) with the exception of plaintiff's claim that 

Story, Swain, Ray, and Vetere violated his Eighth and Fourteen Amendment rights by 

targeting him because of his sexual orientation and jeopardizing his safety by 

humiliating him and/or calling him a snitch in front of the other inmates, and his claim 

that defendants Ray and Vetere retaliated against him for making complaints against 
2 

Story and Swain. 

Any request for certificate of appealability or request to certify an appeal would 

not be taken in good faith and would be denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge
/!LEL.

Mfin; i

FRk'OFr JRi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 2018 MAR 28 PM 3: 2^4

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF

INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH

iuanitaDp2009@gmail.com THAT IS

STORED AT PREMISES CONTROLLED BY

GOOGLE

Case No

Filed Under Seal

Di-) i I

'v:ilJI!JERfi£^T/^10

US

MOTION TO SEAL

Now comes the United States, by its undersigned coimsel. Assistant United States

Attorney, Jonathan J.C. Grey, and hereby respectfully request that the Search and Seizure

Warrant and Return, Affidavit, all related documents and future related filings in the above

entitled cause remain sealed for 120 days. There is an on-going criminal investigation that would

be compromised if the existence of the investigation becomes known. The United States is

apprehensive that pertinent evidence may be destroyed if targets or persons associated become

aware ofsaid Search and Seizure Warrant, Affidavit and related documents.

WHEREFORE, the government respectfully requests that the Search and Seizure

Warrant and Return, Affidavit, and all related documents and future related filings in the above

entitled cause remain sealed for an additional 120 days.

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN

United States Attorney

Jonathan J.C. (jrey

Assistant United States Attorney

Case: 2:18-mj-00269-EAS Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/29/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 114, 116, 118, 122, 175, 177, 181, and 185

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0306]
RIN 1625-AC69


Fire Safety of Small Passenger Vessels; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting an interim rule that appeared in 
the Federal Register on December 27, 2021. The interim rule announced 
changes to small passenger vessel fire safety regulations. The interim 
rule has an effective date of March 28, 2022. This correction fixes 
incorrect cross references in the regulatory text of that interim rule.

DATES: This correction is effective on March 28, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 
correction, please contact Lieutenant Carmine Faul, Coast Guard; 
telephone 202-475-1357, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#731012011e1a1d165d125d1512061f33060010145d1e1a1f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7c4c6d5cacec9c289c689c1c6d2cbe7d2d4c4c089cacecb">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2021-27549, published at 86 FR 73160 on December 27, 
2021, the Coast Guard is correcting incorrect cross references in the 
regulatory text of Sec.  114.110(g)(1). On page 73171, published in the 
first column, the interim rule referenced incorrect paragraphs in the 
second amendatory instruction for Sec.  114.110(g)(1). There, the 
interim rule incorrectly referenced the requirements in Sec. Sec.  
118.400(c) and 118.500r. We are correcting the interim rule to instead 
cross reference Sec. Sec.  118.400(d) and 118.500 in Sec.  
114.110(g)(1). The interim rule added new Sec.  118.400(d) which 
requires certain small passenger vessels to install an interconnected 
fire detection system. Referencing paragraph (c) of Sec.  118.400 was a 
typographical error. Additionally, Sec.  118.500r does not exist. The 
``r'' is a typographical error.
    In FR Doc. 2021-27549, appearing on page 73171 in the Federal 
Register of Monday, December 27, 2021, the following correction is 
made:


Sec.  114.110   [Corrected]

0
1. On page 73171, in the first column, in part 114, in amendment 2, in 
the regulatory text of Sec.  114.110(g)(1), the text ``118.400(c) and 
118.500r'' is corrected to read ``118.400(d) and 118.500''.

    Dated: January 19, 2022.
M.T. Cunningham,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2022-01247 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

APRIL 13, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD33906

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs. AVERY T. FULTZ,

Defendant-Appellant.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 29, 1996 (Unaudited) and
condensed consolidated Statement of Operations for the Quarterly Period ended 
September 29, 1996 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirely by reference 
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           3,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,388
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,305
<INVENTORY>                                    113,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               235,826
<PP&E>                                         450,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 624,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,834
<BONDS>                                        332,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   624,156
<SALES>                                        538,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               538,316
<CGS>                                          470,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  491,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   255
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,988
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>