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

Case: l:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 116 Filed: 10/01/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 619

AO 442 (Rcv.lMh Arrest VV un;i/u ' T' '

United States District Court 2213 oct is p;j 3:

Ibr the

Souihom District of Ohio

United States of America

V. )

SETH NEZAT

) Case No. 1:18-Cf-109-12

)

)

)

)

• •

Df(-iirliir/

ARRES 1 WARRANT

To: Any authorized law enforcement oftlcer

VOl' ARE COMMANDED toarrest and bring before a United Slates inagistriite judge without unnecessary delay

(name IIIiieisrm lo hearreswJ) SETH NEZAT

who is accused of an otTcnsc or violation basedon the following document filed with the court:

• Indictment • Superseding Indictment C1 liiformaiion Cl Superseding Infonnaiion H Complaint

3 Probation Violation Petition • Superv ised Release Violation Petition 3 Violation Nonce 5^^ Order of the Court

Tliis offense is briefly described as follows:

Failure toappear for bond violation hearing before U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black (see attached Order)

Date: 10/01/2019

L'iiii iL'^iiiU'i DiHricl Jiulcc

City and State: Cincinnati, Ohio Timothy S.Black, U.S. District Judge

I'liiiWd iiiimc mill lilUReturn

This warrani was received on hhn.-i , and the person was arrested on tdou-) ip/^

5pL <^QX.P $ue.«.eAJ0i2TT,

Date;

.li rc.iiiiie iifViCr's sinmilure

3.LsPti5, s/^ I'l i'lh'd iimiA' mid Itlle

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 118 Filed: 10/16/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 629
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JERONE MCDOUGALD, Case No. 1;18-cv-498

Plaintiff, Black, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

SHANNON BEAR, et al., REPORT AND

Defendants RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint

(Doc. 8) and the Court's Order of February 27, 2019 (Doc. 9).

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation ofJuly 27, 2018 (Doc. 3),

plaintiffs motion (Doc. 8)should be DENIED.

On February 27, 2019, the Court denied plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis

inthismatter pursuant to the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and ordered

plaintiffto pay the $400.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff was notified

that the failure to pay the full filing fee within thirty days would result in the dismissal ofhis

action. See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378. 382 (6th Cir. 2002).

To date, plaintiff has failed to pay the $400.00 filing fee in this matter as ordered by the

Court. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to pay the $400.00

filing fee. In re Alea, 286 F.3d at 382. Plaintiffremains liable for and should be assessed the

full filing fee of $400.00. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). See

also In re Alea, 286 F.3d at 382.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 8) be DENIED.

Case: 1:18-cv-00498-TSB-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 06/26/19 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 38
2. This case be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to pay the full filing fee as ordered by the Court.

3. Plaintiff be assessed the full filing fee of $400.00,

4. The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to mail a copy of any Order adopting this Report and

Recommendation, along with the attached instructions, to the Cashier of the Southem Ohio

Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio, and that the Cashier be directed as follows:

The prison's Cashier shall deduct, and forward to the Clerk of Court, 20% of the

preceding month'sincome credited to plaintiffs account each time the amount in

the account exceeds $10.00 until the full fee has been paid.'

5. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal

ofthis Court's Order would not be taken in good faith. See McGore, 114 F.3d 601.

Date;

Karen L. Lilkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

'The prison cashier's office shall not send payments aggregating more than the amount ofthe full fee.

2

Case: 1:18-cv-00498-TSB-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 06/26/19 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 39
Case: 1:18-cv-00498-TSB-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 06/26/19 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 40
Case: 1:18-cv-00498-TSB-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 06/26/19 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 41
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 5306
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 2 of 19 PAGEID #: 5307
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 3 of 19 PAGEID #: 5308
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 4 of 19 PAGEID #: 5309
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 5 of 19 PAGEID #: 5310
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 6 of 19 PAGEID #: 5311
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 7 of 19 PAGEID #: 5312
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 8 of 19 PAGEID #: 5313
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 9 of 19 PAGEID #: 5314
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 10 of 19 PAGEID #: 5315
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 11 of 19 PAGEID #: 5316
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 12 of 19 PAGEID #: 5317
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 13 of 19 PAGEID #: 5318
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 14 of 19 PAGEID #: 5319
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 15 of 19 PAGEID #: 5320
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 16 of 19 PAGEID #: 5321
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: 5322
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 18 of 19 PAGEID #: 5323
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-9 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 19 of 19 PAGEID #: 5324
Summary of Employment Arrangements with Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.41 
 The named executive officers of Midas, Inc. (the “Company”) are “at will” employees to the extent that they do not have written employment agreements with the Company. The annual base salaries of
the named executive officers are set annually by the Company’s Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of its Compensation Committee. For 2009, the annual base salaries of the Company’s named executive officers are as follows:

  

				
	 Alan D. Feldman (President and CEO):
	  	$	725,000
		
	 William M. Guzik (SVP and CFO):
	  	$	295,000
		
	 Frederick W. Dow, Jr. (SVP and Chief Marketing Officer):
	  	$	257,500
		
	 Alvin K. Marr (SVP, General Counsel and Secretary):
	  	$	225,000
		
	 John A. Warzecha (SVP, Franchise Business Development):
	  	$	150,000

 In addition, in 2009, each of these executive officers is entitled to participate in the
Company’s Stock Incentive Plan and the 2009 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan. 
 All other terms of the named executive officers’
respective employment with the Company are set annually by mutual agreement of the Board of Directors and such executives.
Exhibit 10.5

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

This Amendment to the Employment Agreement between Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc., an Indiana corporation (the Company), and
Jerry C. Young (the Executive) is dated as of July 30, 2010.

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire
to amend certain provisions of the Executives Employment Agreement dated as of April 5, 2004, as thereafter amended (the Employment Agreement).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements contained herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree as
follows:



| | 1. | The term of employment of the Executive provided for in Section 1 of the Employment Agreement shall end on December 31, 2012, unless earlier terminated
pursuant to Section 4 of the Employment Agreement.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The cash compensation provided for in Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be increased from $262,500 per year to $277,500 per year, beginning
August 1, 2011. All other provisions of Section 3(a) shall remain unchanged.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Sections 3(b) through 3(d) of the Employment Agreement, and all references thereto, shall be renumbered as Sections 3(c) through 3(e), respectively, and the following
new Section 3(b) shall be added to the Employment Agreement:
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Annual Bonuses. For each of the
fiscal years during the Employment Period, the Executive shall be eligible for an annual performance bonus in an amount and subject to the attainment of performance objectives (if any) determined by the Board in its sole discretion.

All of the provisions of the Employment Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date written above.



|                             |  |                         |  |  |  |                   
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------
|Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.
|                             |  |                         | 
|By:                          |  | /s/ Richard E. Lundin   |  |  |  | /s/ Jerry C. Young
|Title:                       |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Jerry C. Young
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    (EXHIBIT 11)
 
                                COST PLUS, INC.
 
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
               (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS, UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         FIFTY-TWO  FORTY-NINE
                                                        WEEKS ENDED WEEKS ENDED
                                                        FEBRUARY 1, FEBRUARY 3,
                                                           1997        1996
                                                        ----------- -----------
<S>                                                     <C>         <C>
NET INCOME.............................................   $7,427      $4,182
                                                          ======      ======
Weighted average shares outstanding during the period:
  Common Stock.........................................    7,721       5,849
  Add incremental shares from assumed exercise of stock
   options.............................................      384         304
                                                          ------      ------
  Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
   outstanding.........................................    8,105       6,153
                                                          ======      ======
PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE...........................   $ 0.92      $ 0.68
                                                          ======      ======
Weighted average shares outstanding during the period:
  Common Stock.........................................    7,721       5,849
  Add incremental shares from assumed exercise of stock
   options.............................................      383         304
                                                          ------      ------
  Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
   outstanding.........................................    8,104       6,153
                                                          ======      ======
FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE.....................   $ 0.92      $ 0.68
                                                          ======      ======
</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-7137 September Term, 2023

1:23-mc-00096-UNA

Filed On: January 24, 2024

Lena Marie Lindberg,

Appellant

v.

Bruce Lee Assam, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to adopt

records, and the motion to seal, it is

ORDERED that the motion to adopt records be denied. Appellant has not

demonstrated that the records in her other cases are relevant to this appeal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal be denied. Appellant has not

overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. See

Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991). It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 3, 2023

order denying without prejudice appellant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis be

affirmed. The district court did not err by concluding that the petition, which suggested

that appellant had been detained by state authorities in Florida and/or Illinois, did not

identify any relevant criminal judgment, and that, to the extent the petition sought to

challenge a conviction resulting from a criminal judgment entered by a state court, the

court lacked jurisdiction. See United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 913 (2009)

(explaining that, to grant a writ of error coram nobis, a court “must have had statutory
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-7137 September Term, 2023

subject-matter jurisdiction over [the] original judgment of conviction”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DANIEL WORDEN, JR., : 

 : Case No. 2:18-cv-00624

 Plaintiff, : 

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : Magistrate Judge Deavers 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s 

Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff and Defendant, through their 

respective counsel, have stipulated to award Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,400, and 

no costs, in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims Plaintiff may have under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act. The Court GRANTS the Motion [#21]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access 

to Justice Act is accepted and the Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff attorney fees in the 

amount of $4,400; and 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to 

the United States subject to offset. If no such pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall 

pay the Equal Access to Justice Act award directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Algenon L. Marbley___ 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: December 13, 2019
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 963

- C V

Style: Medical Discount Pharmacy, L.P., LifeChek Rosenberg GP, Inc.,

LifeChek, Inc., and Bruce V. Gingrich

v State of Texas

Date motion filed * : March 18 , 2014

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 1 7 , 201 3

Number of prior extensions: 3 Current Due date: March 19 , 201 4

Date Requested: April 19 , 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

The record was originally due on December 17, 2013. We have granted three

extensions for filing the record and have previously stated that no further

extensions would be granted. Accordingly, we deny the motion. If the record is

not filed within 14 days of the date of this order, we may require the court

reporter to appear and show cause why the record has not been filed.

Judge's signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: March 20, 2014
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-15-00543- CV

N. F ., Appellan t
v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 14- 0029 79, H ONO RAB LE GISELA D. TRI ANA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On August 2 7 , 2015, appellant N.F., the children’ s attorney /gua rdian ad litem in a pare ntal-termination case , filed a notice of appea l. Although N.F.’ s notice of appea l appea red to be
an appea l f

rom a final decr ee of termination, which was signe d by the trial cour

t on J uly 28, 2015, the cler k’s rec ord later filed in this Court indicates that the trial court grante d a motion for new trial. Upon revie w of the trial-cour t cler k’s rec ord, the Clerk of this Court sent N.F. a letter informing her that the C ourt appea

rs to lack jurisdiction over the appeal because we have no jurisdiction to hear
an appea l from a judgme nt that is not final, unless there is specific statutory authority permitting an appea l befor e final judgme nt. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51
. 0 1 2 , . 0 1 4(a)
. The Clerk reque sted a response informing us of any basis that exis ts for jurisdiction. N.F. has not responde d. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.__________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Goodwin, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 16, 2015

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,301,149
<SECURITIES>                                 1,667,795
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,466,625
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,888,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,933,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,888,378
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,665
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (799,385)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (799,385)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (799,385)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (21.50)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (21.50)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         199,075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,075
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,598
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,075
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,106
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    145
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                145
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       145
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>