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

# TIME AND DATE:

 Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on January 27, 2022.

# PLACE:

 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC. (This meeting will be a virtual meeting).

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

* * * * *

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

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

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

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-01200 Filed 1-18-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1998 (unaudited) and the Condensed
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Six Months Ended June 30,
1998 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                           3,625
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                    2,669
<ALLOWANCES>                       452
<INVENTORY>                      3,170
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                10,289
<PP&E>                           1,417
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  22,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,698
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                            62
<OTHER-SE>                      24,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    22,810
<SALES>                          6,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 6,922
<CGS>                            3,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    3,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 (80)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (403)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (585)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                182
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                       182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.03)
        

</TABLE>
1

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-544

 Judge Sargus, Jr.

v.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

Jury Trial Day 3

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Before Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

For Plaintiff: John Marshall and Sam Schlein

For Defendant: Susan Williams, Wes Phillips and Paul Bernhart

Courtroom Deputy: Denise Shane

Court Reporter: Crystal Hatchett

Cross examination of Officer Anthony Johnson by plaintiff (attorney Sam Schlein)

JEx-2

Cross-examination of Rhonda Grizzell by plaintiff (attorney John Marshall), page 

65 of depo, line 17

Cross examination of former Chief Kimberly Jacobs by plaintiff (attorney John 

Marshall) page 59 of depo, line 12

Direct examination of Charles McFadden by plaintiff (attorney Sam Schlein)

Cross examination of Charles McFadden by defendant (attorney Paul Bernhart), 

page 76 of depo, line 22

Redirect of Charles McFadden by defendant (attorney Sam Schlein)

Jurors excused

Move to admit all exhibits – no objections.

Plaintiff rests

Defendant moves for directed verdict

Court finds enough evidence for jury to decide case

Direct of Anthony Johnson by defendant (attorney Wes Phillips) JEx 5, JEx3

Cross of Anthony Johnson by plaintiff (attorney Sam Schlein)

Direct of Sargent Andre Tate by plaintiff (attorney Susan Williams) JEx 5, JEx 1

Cross of Tate by Mr. Schlein

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 06/08/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5729
2

Direct of Levon Morefield by defendant (Wes Phillips), JEx 5, JEx 2

Cross Examination of Levon Morefield by plaintiff (John Marshall)

4:26 pm Court adjourns until 9:00 a.m., Thursday, June 9, 2022.

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 06/08/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5730
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000798783
<NAME> UNIVERSAL HEALTH REALTY INCOME TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                         852
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  790
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                     179,167
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             178,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                     76,889
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        90
<OTHER-SE>                                  99,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               178,821
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,419
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,583
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,972
<EPS-BASIC>                                   1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.56


</TABLE>
Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney
Shelby County, Ohio

Timothy S. Sell, Prosecutor
Courthouse, First Floor
P.O. Box 4159

Sianey, OH 45365
937-498-2101 (office)
937-658-6125 (facsimile!

Nw Nw?

FILED
COMHON PLEAS COURT
16FEB25 PM 12:27

MICHELE XK. MUME
SHELBY COUNTY CLERK

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF

SHELBY COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO * CASE NO. 16CRO00_ Sle
Plaintiff *
vs. *
JOSEPH E. COTTERMAN * INDICTMENT
Defendant . *

ee ek # & & kK Ke eR FR RF KK FF

Of the First Part in the year two thousand and sixteen.

THE JURORS OF THE GRAND JURY of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the

‘County aforesaid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio, do find

and present that Joseph E. Cotterman,

COUNT I-- GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION - O.R.C. Section 2907.05(A)(1) = F-4

On or about January 27, 2016, did in this County violate Ohio Revised Code Section
2907.05(A)(1), in that he had sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; or
cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender, where the
offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force, to wit: he, by
force, had sexual contact with a 19-year-old female, being a felony of the fourth degree.

against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.

TIMOTHY S. SELL

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY A TRUE BILL
a
By. [ £ “Sf SL WIA
Timothy S. Sell, #0030867 Foreperson of Grand Jury
Shelby County Prosecutor

appears an file in my office, the original as the same

. GHELE K, MUMFORD CLE
By_. rare 2} BK

Dery



Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney
Shelby County, Ohio

Timothy 5, Seti, Prosecutor
Courthouse, First Floor

* 0. Box 4159

Sioney, OH 45365
937-498-2101 (office)
937-658-6125 (facsimile!

STATE OF OHIO,
SS:
SHELBY COUNTY.

I, the undersigned, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said County, do

| hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and complete copy of the original indictment, with

the endorsements thereon, now on file in my office.

WITNESS my hand and the seal of said
Court at Sidney, Shelby County, Ohio,

this 25° day of February, 2016.
AN. }
Clerk VN
By —
Deputy Clerk
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 0 0 049

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ MARIO ANGEL DIAZ , Appellant ,

v.

MARINA DIAZ , Appellee

.

_

___________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 444 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

_

___________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides , Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On June 10, 2022, appellant was
granted a third motion to extend the time to file a brief making the brief due on July 8,

2022. On July 14, 2022 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the appeal was
subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant provided2 reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file a brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1)

. Appellan t failed to respond to the notice and has not filed a brief.

Appellant has neither reasonably explain ed his failure to file a motion for extension

of time n or file d his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution

.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b)

, (c)

.
CLARISSA SILVA Justice

D elivered and filed on the 18 th day of August , 202 2

.
Case: 1:18-cv-00091-MWM-KLL Doc #: 60 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 340
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 707 

Recognizing September 1, 2020, as ‘‘National Poll Worker Recruitment Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. ALEXANDER, Ms. BALDWIN, 

Mr. BENNET, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CASEY, Mr. COONS, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. CRUZ, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HEINRICH, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. KAINE, Mr. MANCHIN, 

Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MERKLEY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

PETERS, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. SMITH, Mr. WARNER, Ms. 

WARREN, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing September 1, 2020, as ‘‘National Poll Worker 

Recruitment Day’’. 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes September 1, 2020, as ‘‘National 

3 Poll Worker Recruitment Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the need for, and appreciation of, 

5 the service of poll workers; and 

6 (3) encourages eligible people to help America 

7 vote in the 2020 election by serving as poll workers. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

D. E. BLANKENSHIP, Jr.,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

LEONARD VARE; NEVADA
ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents

- Appellees. No. 12

- 15484

D.C. No. 3:08

- cv

- 00641

- LRH

VPC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2015 San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Donald Blankenship, who was convicted in Nevada state court of sexually

assaulting his daughter, appeals the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2 253. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3. 

# FILED

DEC 2 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 1. The conclusion of the Nevada Supreme Court that Blankenship “failed to

show that there was a reasonable probability of a different result at trial ” had

testimony regarding certain prior bad acts not been elicited by defense counsel was

not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

The victim testified in detail as to each assault, and the case turned on her credibility.

The testimony about prior bad acts was a minor portion of the evidence that the jury

heard, and the state did not mention the bad acts in summation. Fairminded jurists

could thus “disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington

v. Richter , 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)

.

2. W e decline to expand the certificate of appealability and therefore do not

address Bla nkenship’s remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.
#### Lyman D. Norris v. The Michigan State Insurance Company. The Michigan State Insurance Company v. Lyman D. Norris.

*Hsloppel Try terms of arrangement relied on.*

One who claims rights in land by virtue of a confirmatory arrangement between two other persons, from one of whom his original title was derived, must recognize all the terms of that arrangement and cannot insist upon anything which his predecessor in title could not insist upon.

E. bought property upon a foreclosure which turned out to be invalid, and conveyed it with warranty. The mortgager then conveyed the equity of redemption to N. for the protection of E.’s grantees, but by an understanding between N. and P. a portion of the premises was excepted from this arrangement. *Held*'that if the grantees relied on the arrangement made for their protection they must recognize its terms throughout, and could not insist on rights in the land that was thus excepted even though the original conveyance to them antedated the arrangement and exception.

Appeal from Ottawa. (Arnold, J.)

June 20.

Oct. 31.

Bill and cross-bill to quiet title. The Insurance Company appeals.

Affirmed.

*Norris <& Uhl*for Norris.

*622*Thomas J. 0 ’Brien*for the Insurance Company.

Cooley, J.

We have in these cases a suit and cross-suit to quiet the title of the parties, respectively, to land which both claim. The same title in its origin was in question in the case of *Michigan State Ins. Co. v. Soule,*decided early in the term, *ante,*p. 312, and we there held that the conveyance to Norris was for the protection of the grantees of William M. and Thomas W. Ferry, under whom the Insurance Company claimed, and that, in the case then before us, the Insurance Company was entitled to recover’.

The difference between that case and this is that the land now claimed by Norris was expressly, by arrangement between him and Edward Ferry, representing W. M. and T. W. Ferry, exempted from the general arrangement made for the protection of the grantees of the Ferrys, and left to the disposal of Norris. As the title under which the Insurance Company claims had been acquired by grant from the Ferrys prior to this arrangement between them and Norris, it may have been inequitable to allow it to be thus cut off; but as it is not claimed by the Insurance Company that its title was perfected so as to become available otherwise than by the dealings between the Ferrys and Norris, and as it relies altogether upon equities established against Norris in favor of the Ferrys, we think it must recognize all the terms of that arrangement, and can claim nothing under it which the Ferrys could not insist upon.

It follows that the decree appealed from must be affirmed with costs.

The other J ustices concurred.
**
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Mark D. Gordon, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.: 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact 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; 

Date: June 30, 2020 

 

/S/ Mark D. Gordon

**Mark D. Gordon**

**President and Chief Executive Officer**
**
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:18-cv-00670-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-5 Filed: 07/10/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 28
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-62-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7--Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Authorization 
of Production Activity, Lilly del Caribe, Inc. (Pharmaceutical 
Products), Carolina, Puerto Rico

    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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GARY ZUNIGA, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00333-CR

Appeal from

207th District Court

of Hays County, Texas

(TC # CR-13-0328)

O R D E R

The Court, on its own motion, finds it necessary to supplement the record. It is therefore 

ORDERED that the District Clerk of Hays County, Texas prepare a supplemental clerk’s record 

to include the following: a copy of any order assessing attorney’s fees against Appellant as costs 

and forward same to this Court on or before December 1, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 0721 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 -NM - 217 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**