alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In-Person Attendees: The Commercial Packaged Boilers Preliminary Analysis Meeting Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Brookman, Douglas Facilitator Public Solutions, Inc. 108 Newburg Avenue Baltimore MD 21228 410-719-0580410-719-0581

Darlington, Adam Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 700 WashingtonDC 20036 202-973-7201 202-973-2401

Lau, Christopher Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 700 WashingtonDC 20036 202-481-7524202-973-2401

Lekov, Ph.D., P.E., AlexEnergy Analysis Department Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) One Cyclotron Road MS: 90-4000 University of California MS: 90-4000 Berkeley CA 94720 510-486-6849 510-486-6996

Leon, Felipe Electrical Enegineer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 902 Battle Blvd, P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05 Richland WA 99352 509-372-6516 N/A

Sachs, Ph.D, Harvey Senior Fellow, Buildings Program American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) National Press Building 529 14th Street NW Suite 600 WashingtonDC 20045 202-507-4014202-429-2248

Stanonik, Frank Chief Technical Advisor Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 2111 Wilson Boulevard Suite 500 Arlington VA 22201-3001 703-600-0321 703-562-1942

White, Charles Vice President PHCC-National Association 2425 Twyckenham Drive South BendIN 46614 574-286-7866 574-234-9276

Winiarski, David Senior Research Engineer - Energy and Engineering Division Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 902 Battelle Boulevard P.O. Box 999 MSIN K5-08 Richland WA 99337 509-375-4461 509-375-3614
Case: 3:18-cr-00075-WHR Doc #: 23 Filed: 09/24/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 63
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 169 Filed: 11/25/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 873
Case Number Caption

1:20-cr-00120-TSB USA v. Bronson, et al.

1:20-cr-00057-TSB USA v. Timothy Ray Adkins

1:20-cr-00075-TSB USA v. Sherman

1:20-cr-00132-TSB USA v. Ulbrich

1:20-cr-00090-TSB USA v. Lewis et al

1:18-cr-00077-TSB USA v. Moore

1:18-cr-00147-TSB USA v. Reliford

1:15-cr-00069-TSB USA v. Gmoser

1:19-cr-00025-TSB USA v. Campbell

1:19-cr-00136-TSB USA v. Khlari Sirotkin, et al.,

1:20-cr-00056-TSB USA v. Smith et al

1:20-cr-00093-TSB USA v. Owens

1:19-cr-00070-TSB USA v. McCoy

1:20-cr-00067-TSB USA v. Seay

1:18-cr-00109-TSB USA v. Shuklin et al

1:20-cr-00128-TSB USA v. Dowell

1:20-cr-00062-TSB USA v. Carter

1:20-cr-00102-TSB USA v. Davis

1:20-cr-00005-TSB USA v. Stone

1:20-cr-00111-TSB USA v. Sims

1:19-cr-00023-TSB USA v. Yacub et al

1:20-cr-00087-MRB USA v. Bissoon, et al

1:20-cr-00116-MRB USA v. Williams-Moore

1:20-cr-00135-MRB USA v. Umana

1:20-cr-00107-MRB USA v. McIntosh

1:20-cr-00122-MRB USA v. Brunner

1:20-cr-00104-MRB USA v. Edwards

1:20-cr-00108-MRB USA v. Napier

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 169 Filed: 11/25/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 874
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-124

Judge Marbley

Ashley N. Quinones 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20) that the

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

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Information, and she

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: August 22, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             APPLIED INNOVATION INC.


              Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings Per Share

              For the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999, and 1998



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  2000                 1999                 1998
                                                              -----------          -----------          -----------
<S>                                                           <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
- used for computation of basic earnings per share             15,598,723           15,598,143           15,804,608

Add net shares issuable pursuant to stock
option plans less shares assumed
repurchased at the average market price                           415,430               48,907              158,238
                                                              -----------          -----------          -----------

Number of shares for computation of
diluted earnings per share                                     16,014,153           15,647,050           15,962,846
                                                              ===========          ===========          ===========

Net income for basic and diluted earnings per share           $10,145,002          $ 7,005,081          $ 2,309,652
                                                              ===========          ===========          ===========

Basic earnings per share                                            $0.65                $0.45                $0.15
                                                                    =====                =====                =====

Diluted earnings per share                                          $0.63                $0.45                $0.14
                                                                    =====                =====                =====
</TABLE>





                                      -27-
#### Application of David TANNER.

Patent Appeal No. 7514.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

April 30, 1965.

Worley, C. J., and Almond, J., dissented.

*1019Carl A. Hechmer, Wilmington, Del. (Frederick Schafer, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.

Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. for Commissioner of Patents.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, SMITH and ALMOND, J udges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals dated March 31, 1964.

Appellant has moved to correct diminution of the record by the addition of a terminal disclaimer filed by applicant in the Patent Office and recorded therein on November 9,1964. The motion is denied without prejudice. The case is remanded to the Patent Office Board of Appeals to determine the effect of said terminal disclaimer on the issues presented by the appeal, taking into consideration In re Robeson, 331 F.2d 610, 51 CCPA 1271, decided May 14, 1964, and In re Kaye, 332 F.2d 816, 51 CCPA 1465, decided June 11, 1964, and to take such further action as it may deem appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106.

WORLEY, Chief Judge, with whom ALMOND, Judge, joins

(dissenting).

It is embarrassing to witness this attempted exercise of authority which Congress has not seen fit to give this court. Quite the contrary, Congress has expressly limited our authority.1

Appellant has had his day in court through the legal procedures controlling the Patent Office.2 The appeal is now ready for decision here on the record made below. It is our duty — indeed we have no choice — but to proceed accordingly.

It is doubtful that the Patent Office wishes to abdicate its heretofore independent status as an arm of the executive branch of the government; but, if so, it would be hard to imagine a better precedent than the instant command offers.

1

. 35 U.S.C. § 144 states:

> “The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, on petition, *shall hear and determine such appeal on the evidence produced before the Patent Office,*and the decision shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal. * * * ” [Emphasis supplied.]

2

. Tbe Commissioner of Patents, in a decision dated November 19, 1964, denied a petition to reopen this case. Appellant failed to utilize the remedies then available to him to obtain judicial review of that decision.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0054

_________________

SHANDOR S. BADARUDDIN,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA and the NINETEENTH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HONORABLE

MATTHEW CUFFE, Presiding,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the opening 

brief, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

including June 27, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve the opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 26 2022

05/26/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0054
mm 

~~~~ 

SDOH,7/03 

PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR COURT-ORDERED MONETARY PENALTIES 

Name: John A Campbell Docket #: I :97CROO 104 

Judge: The Honorable S. Arthur 

Spiegel 

You have been ordered by the United States District Court to pay a fine of $2=:;,""'0""'0""'0______-', as a 


condition of your supervised release. 


Probation Officer's Recommendation: 


It is the recommendation ofthe Probation Officer that the court order a payment schedule in the amount of 


cing January I, 2011. This is bas~~on Campbell's present financial profile. 

/1//910 

u. S. Probation Officer Date - !J:::;. 

Or er of tbe Court: The Court orders minimum monthly payments of $ ~ to commence on 

I I til the debt is satisfied or the Court alters the payment schedule. If191!J 


Dat / 

Instructions to offender: Payments must be in the fonn of a Money Order, Certified Check or Cashier's 

Check. Personal cbecks will not be accepted. The check or money order must be made payable to: Clerk, 

U.S. District Court. Please reference the docket # listed above on the check or money order. Submit the 

payment directly to the Clerk of Courts at: 

United States Clerk ofCourts 

324 Potter Stewart U. S. Courthouse 

100 E. Fifth Street, Room 103 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 

Note: Your restitution/fine bears or does not bear (strike one) interest. There could be additional monetary 

penalties for payments that come past due as outlined in the attached General Instructions Regarding Special 

Assessments, Restitution and Fines for Persons Under Supervision.I agree to make payments as outlined 

above. I understand that failure to abide by this agreement could result in revocation ofmy supervision and 

other penalties. If for any reason r am unable to make a scheduled payment, I will contact my Probation 

Officer immediately to advise. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of this schedule and 

agreement. 

Defendant Date 

U.S. Probation Officer Date 

Original: Probation file 

Copies: Defendant, Clerk of Court, US Attorney office, FLU 

Case: 1:97-cr-00104-SSB Doc #: 50 Filed: 11/22/10 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
vs. : Case No, 3:18¢r2
MATTHEW JONES, : JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
Defendant.

PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER; TRIAL DATE AND OTHER DATES SET

Date of Scheduling Conference 2/5/2018
Jury Trial Date 3/19/2018
Final Pretrial Conference (by telephone) Monday, 3/12/2018 at 5:00 pm

Motion Filing Deadline

Oral and Evidentiary Motions 3/2/2018
Other Motions 3/9/2018
Discovery Cut-off 3/9/2018
Speedy Trial Deadline 3/20/2018
Discovery out — Plaintiff to Defendant done
Ve >
February 6, 2018 WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 1532

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 1533
Exhibit 10.48



 Exhibit 10.48 
 Summary Translation of Industrial Product Purchasing Agreement 
 Buyer: Southwest Oil Gas Company of SINOPEC

 Supplier: Jining ENI Energy Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Contract
number: GX2008-690 
 Signing date: 18th of December, 2008 
 Total sum: RMB1,872,000 (tax not included), with tax: RMB2,190,240

 Signing place: Urumchi 
 Product: Content gauge, fire system
information modeling. PT Pressure transmitter 
 Delivery date: Before 18th of February, 2009 
 ENI has not yet collected full payment or
issued an invoice but has recognized this amount as income for 2008.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA~ NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Mr. Douglas M. 06/30/2014 No response. 

Lane 

A4A Mr. Robert Ireland 07/28/2014 No response. 

Other/Additional information:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135078 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135078 COA: 279639 Allegan CC: 05-014124-FH JEFFREY SLADE TAFIL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 10, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would remand this case to the tr ial court for resentencing regarding OV 2.

l0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2008

Clerk
Appendix – C

Monthly Maintenance Log

UAS: Date Issue 

Discovered

Date Issue 

Addressed

Issue 

(Description/Maintenance 

Conducted)

Maintenance 

Performed by:

Print and Sign
ALL - 001067

ALL - 001068

ALL - 001085

ALL - 001086
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

\A\^m DIVISION

1:18CV510

rWOTT

UJ. BOWUAN

(EnterAbove theName of the PlaintifTin thisAction)

(Enter above the name ofthe Defendant in this Action)

If there are additional Defendants, please list them:

^»¥-or QVVlo \\ta}Au3c<.aPdAi^l SuloclMSlcn

Uvfv rvn5,uvn received

•Ji'l 2 5 ZOlti

COMPLAINT

RICHARD \V. NAGEL

Clerk Of Court

CINCINNATI. OHIO

I, Parties to the action:

Plaintiff: Place your name and address on the lines below. The address you give must be the address where

the court may contact you and mail documents to you. A telephone number is required.

UUc-LsVy^ WoixVl

Name - Full Name Please - PRINT

S-Ociol APA

Street Address

rine\>rNAclAn ^nv\

City, State and Zip Code

TeleprhoneNuniber

If there are additional Plaintiffs in this suit, a separate piece of paper should be attached immediately behind this

page with their full names, addresses and telephone numbers. Ifthere are no other Plaintiffs, continue with this

form.

Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 1:18-cv-00510-SJD-SKB Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 07/25/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000881460
<NAME> RANES INTERNATIONAL HOLDING, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  293,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               619,316
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 869,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          305,727
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,227
<OTHER-SE>                                     555,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   869,316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               269,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (269,756)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (269,756)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (269,756)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporated by reference in the Registration
Statements of Nabors Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration Numbers
333-11313 and 33-87322) and on Form S-3 (Registration Number 333-2427) of our
report dated November 25, 1996, except as to certain information presented in 
Notes 9 and 15, for which the date is December 20, 1996, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Nabors Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries 
as of September 30, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the three years in the 
period ended September 30, 1996, which reports are included in this Annual 
Report on form 10-K.

                                             COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Houston, Texas
December 30, 1996
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JENNIFER WOODALL, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-202

 

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(consent case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

(DOC. 19); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $3,000.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $3,000.00. Doc. 19. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the 

reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 19); 

and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $3,000.00. As no further matters remain 

pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 1, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREY SHUKLIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109-1

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

ORDER

Pursuant to § 15002(b)(2) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act (the “CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020), and this 

Court’s General Order Nos. 20-05, 20-07, 20-18, 20-23, 20-26, 20-27, 20-31, 20-35, 20-

36, and 20-38, the undersigned, as the District Judge to whom this case is assigned, 

finds in this felony case that the change of plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11 cannot be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of 

justice. 

Specifically, this Court finds that serious harm may occur to the interests of 

justice in that further delay to Defendant Andrey Shuklin’s change of plea hearing 

would interfere with both his and society’s interest in prompt resolution of criminal 

matters. See United States v. Westmoreland, 712 F.3d 1066, 1076 (7th Cir. 2013) 

(“Both the accused and society as a whole have an interest in prompt resolution of 

criminal proceedings.”) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519–20 (1972)). Such 

delay would also interfere with Shuklin’s ability to begin satisfying any penalty or 

sanction associated with the charged crime to which he intends to plead guilty, a 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 172 Filed: 01/22/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 886
2 

delay which “may have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation.” See Barker, 407 U.S. 

at 520. (observing that “delay between arrest and punishment may have a 

detrimental effect on rehabilitation”). As Shuklin intends to plead guilty to the charge 

against him, he has an interest in moving his case forward, as once he has pled and 

is sentenced, Shuklin may qualify for certain benefits under the First Step Act, Pub. 

L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), benefits which would begin to accrue only when

he begins serving his sentence. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) (substance abuse 

treatment available to qualifying convicted prisoners); see also United States v. 

Cranford, No. 3:07-CR-134, 2008 WL 4449908, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008) 

(finding that the interests of justice were served by ensuring that the defendant was 

not deprived of the opportunity to complete his rehabilitation program). For those 

reasons, the Court finds that further delay to Shuklin’s change of plea hearing may 

cause serious harm to the interests of justice. 

This Court further finds that Shuklin, after consultation with his counsel, has 

consented to the use of video conferencing to conduct the change of plea. 

Accordingly, this Court ORDERS that the change of plea hearing may be 

conducted by use of video conferencing technology.

SO ORDERED. 

January 22, 2021

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 172 Filed: 01/22/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 887