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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

JEFF DEY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-106 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

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

Fees (Doc. #15). The Commissioner does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. #16). 

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

total amount of $12,000.00. 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 

$2,750.00 in attorney fees to Plaintiff’s counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA). (Doc. #s 13, 14). The EAJA award, however, was subject to offset in the 

amount of any debt Plaintiff owed the Government. See Doc. #14. Counsel may not 

recover attorney fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for the same work. 
2

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. The Motion for Allowance of Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff’s 

attorney (Doc. #15) is GRANTED; 

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the amount of $12,000.00; 

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; and 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March 3, 2020 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JERAD R. ANGLE, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-266 

 Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

 v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

CITY OF NEWARK, OHIO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) on March 27, 2018, against Defendants City of 

Newark, Ohio; John/Jane Does 1-5; and others. On July 13, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed against the Doe Defendants for failure 

to timely effect service over the Doe Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). (ECF No. 11.) As the Court explained in the July 13 Show Cause Order, pursuant to Rule 

4(m): 

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—

on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action 

without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a 

specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must 

extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

against Defendants John/Jane Doe 1-5 pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service. 
2 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 /s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

 CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

TED MARCUM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3: 17-cv-437 

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE 

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #144); 

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(DOC. #140) 

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by United States 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington in her June 23, 2021, Report and 

Recommendations, Doc. #144, as well as upon a thorough de novo review of the 

Court's file and the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS said judicial filing, and 

OVERRULES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. #140, of the Court's 

March 19, 2018, Decision and Entry dismissing the claims brought against 

Defendant Sheriff Dave Duchak in his individual capacity, Doc. #49. 

Although Plaintiff was advised of his right to file Objections to the Report 

and Recommendations, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no Objections 

were filed within the time allotted. 
Only the § 1983 Equal Protection claim brought against Sheriff Duchak in 

his official capacity remains for trial on April 4, 2022. 

Date: July 14, 2021 

WALTER H. RICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2
Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n Essentia l Ai r

Servic e OST^2008-d2l 7 DearDOT , I liv e i n Kak e an dhav e bee n please dwithth e servic e provide db y Wing s o f Alaska
. Wing s ha s worke dwit h th e communit y t o provid e efficient an dcomfortabl e year-rouh dservic e t o ou r community
. Wiiig s carava n servic e i s muc h neede db y providin g th e abilit y t o carr y 3,00 0 pound s o f payload , meanin g the y ca n ge t 9 passenger s an dal l thei r baggag e o n th e flight
. Thi s i s importan t a s ou r service s ar e limite dan dgettin g ou r baggage , cargo , an dmai l i s essentia l t o ou r community
. Weathe r

ha s alway s bee n achalleng e an dit' s reassurin g t o kno w tha t Wing s o f Alask aha s th e Medallio n Shield , earne db y operatin g wel l abov e safety standard s se t

b y th e State. V Pleas e reselec t

Wing s o f Alask atdserv e Kak e fo r th e iaex t 2 years !
Neffs Bancorp, Inc. 10-K





EXHIBIT 32.2








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





The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with this annual report on Form 10-K, that:





§
the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and


§
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.








/s/ Kevin A. Schmidt


Kevin A. Schmidt, Principal Financial Officer








Dated:  March 22, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1978

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, PAUL FRANKLIN CASSELL, Claimant - Appellant,

versus
505 VICTOR STREET, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 307 CHERRY STREET, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 753 DAVIS STREET, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 703 OSBORNE STREET, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 511 VICTOR STREET, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 182 SOUTH BEESON ROAD, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 1.00 ACRE LOCATED ON SOUTH BEESON ROAD, EDEN, LEAKSVILLE TOWNSHIP, ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 1 ACRE MORE OR LESS LOCATED IN RIDGEWAY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, HENRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; 1.698 ACRES LOCATED ON SATURN DRIVE, IRISBURG MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, HENRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, with all2 appurtenances and improvements thereon; 4.89 ACRES LOCATED IN RIDGEWAY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, HENRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; TWO TRACTS CONTAINING 18.22 ACRES AND 14.65 ACRES LOCATED IN RIDGEWAY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, HENRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, with all appurtenances and improvements thereon; TWO TRACTS CONTAINING 102.54 ACRES AND .90 ACRES LOCATED IN RIDGEWAY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, HENRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ALL KNOWN AS 1051 POWELL ROAD, with all appurtenances and improvements, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-00-419)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Franklin Cassell, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Paul Franklin Cassell appeals the district court’s decree and judgment of forfeiture. We have revie wed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Cassell’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeUnited States v. Cassell , No. CA-00-419 (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**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                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              13, 2006 | By:                                                             | /s/ Nataliya              Hearn |
|                                     | Nataliya              Hearn, Ph.D.                                        |
|                                     | President,              Chief              Executive Officer and Director |

|                                     |                                 |                              |
|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Date: October              13, 2006 | By:                        | /s/ John              Grippo |
|                                     | John              Grippo             |
|                                     | Chief              Financial Officer |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-62-2021]

On September 8, 2021, Lilly del Caribe, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7K, in Carolina, Puerto Rico.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 51653-51654, September 16, 2021). On January 6, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: January 6, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-00314 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILBERTO G. MUÑOZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION; CAROLYN W.

COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of SSA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55903

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01003-MMANLS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2016** 

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Gilberto G. Muñoz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his

action under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., alleging

retaliatory firing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

FILED

JUN 06 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo a district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Ford v.

City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Muñoz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants’ legitimate reason for firing him was pretextual. See Coons v. Sec’y of

U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth burden

shifting test for evaluating a retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act).

Muñoz’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, are denied as

unnecessary.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-55903
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

87 FR 781.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on January 13, 2022.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

This meeting also discussed: Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.

* * * * *

# CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

*Authority:*                         Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-01111 Filed 1-18-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Exhibit 10.2





Amendment to Subscription Agreement





Amendment to Subscription Agreement dated as of January 12, 2011, by and between, Acorn Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) and Joe Cogdell (the “Investor”).





WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor have entered into a Subscription Agreement dated as of December 17, 2010 (the “Subscription Agreement”);





WHEREAS, pursuant to the Subscription Agreement, the Investor agreed to acquire 3,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock (the “Shares”) at a price of $3.50 per share (the “Purchase Price”);





WHEREAS, on December 21, 2010, the Investor tendered an aggregate of $10,500 to the Company in consideration for and against the issuance to the Investor of the Shares; and





WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor have agreed to amend the Subscription Agreement to increase the Purchase Price by $0.20 to $3.70 per share in order to comply with certain NASDAQ rules and certain interpretations of the NASDAQ staff of such rules.





NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:





1.           The Signature Page of the Subscription Agreement is hereby amended to state that the “Purchase Price Per Share” set forth thereon shall be $3.70 and the “Aggregate Purchase Price” set forth thereon shall be $11,100.





2.           Concurrent with the execution of this Amendment to Subscription Agreement, the Investor has delivered a check in the amount of $600 payable to the order of the Company representing the increase in the Aggregate Purchase Price from $10,500 to $11,100.





2            Except as amended hereby, the Subscription Agreement remains in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to Subscription Agreement as of the date first written above.




ACORN ENERGY, INC.




By:Name:Title:





Joe Cogdell
EXHIBIT 15





Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee


for the Cross Timbers Royalty Trust:





We are aware that XTO Energy Inc. and Cross Timbers Royalty Trust have incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-56983 on Form S-3,
and that XTO Energy Inc. has incorporated by reference in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-55784 and 333-91460 on Form S-8, Cross Timbers Royalty Trusts Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, which includes our report dated August 5,
2002, covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report
prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.





KPMG LLP





Dallas, Texas


August 14, 2002




18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-55

Jonathan Spayde 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 14) that the

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

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

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: April 12, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge