alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-02-1997
<CASH>                           139
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                    888
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                      491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,602
<PP&E>                         3,954
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 5,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         11,821
<BONDS>                        1,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                         112
<OTHER-SE>                    (7,391)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   5,917
<SALES>                        8,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               8,757
<CGS>                          5,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  5,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               6,152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               402
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (3,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (3,259)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                  (3,259)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.03)

        

</TABLE>
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Southern District of Ohio

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al.,

1:18-cv-357

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, et al.

✔ Plaintiffs are granted judgment against Defendants as expressed in the Order and Opinion of today's date

of the three-judge panel of Circuit Judge Moore and District Judges Black and Watson.

✔ three-judge panel

5/3/2019

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 263 Filed: 05/03/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 23659
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DarrelL. Posegate, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|        |   /s/ Darrel L. Posegate                                                    |                          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|   | Darrel L. Posegate, Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |
|   |                                                                                  |
|   | Date:                                                                                 |   November 13, 2006 |   |
|        |                                                                                       |                               |  |  |

 

----

*                                         Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to HF Financial Corp. and will be retained by HF Financial Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

BRYAN KANU, Case No. 1:18-cv-37 

 Plaintiff, 

 Black, J. 

 vs. Bowman, M.J. 

SIEMENS, PLM et al., 

 Defendants ORDER 

 This action was dismissed on July 31, 2018. (Docs. 12, 13). Plaintiff appealed to 

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the appeal was dismissed on May 15, 2019. (Doc. 

20). Thereafter, on May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to seal the complaint. 

(Doc. 21). Plaintiff contends that there is simply no immediate need for the public to have 

access to any of the dismissed complaints (amended or otherwise) in this case, and 

sealing the complaints would ensure that the complaints cannot be used to gratify private 

spite, or promote public scandal. Plaintiff further contends that because he is seeking 

only to seal the complaint, and not the entire record, his request does not infringe on the 

public’s right to access. Plaintiff’s request is not well-taken. 

 The Sixth Circuit has made clear that filing documents under seal in a public record 

is highly disfavored, and the undersigned does not believe that any compelling interests 

exist in favor of non-disclosure, or that such interests would outweigh the interests of the 

public in an open record. See, e.g., Danley v. Encore Capital Group, Inc., 680 Fed. Appx. 

394, 2017 WL 710470 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017) (citing Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue 

Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305-309 (6th Cir. 2016). Here, Plaintiff has failed to set 

Case: 1:18-cv-00037-TSB-SKB Doc #: 22 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 966
2 

forth any specific facts that would warrant sealing the complaint in this matter. 

Accordingly, because the Sixth Circuit highly disfavors filing documents under seal, 

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 21) is not well-taken and is herein DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:18-cv-00037-TSB-SKB Doc #: 22 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 967
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

PEGGY S. FONT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-230 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of 

Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

(Doc. #14). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees 

in the amount of $7,201.14, in attorney’s fees and $400.00 in costs, in full satisfaction 

and settlement of any and all claims Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the above 

case. Prior to Plaintiff filing an EAJA petition, the parties jointly reached a resolution 

to settle EAJA fees in this case. The Parties’ Stipulation represents a compromise on 

disputed positions and is not intended to set precedent for, or a representation of, any 

specific hourly rate or total number of hours. 

The award of attorney fees will satisfy all of Plaintiff’s claims for fees, costs, and 

expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this case. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, and 

not her attorney, and can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the 
2

United States under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

After the court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, Defendant agrees to direct that the 

award be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly 

signed by Plaintiff. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #14) is accepted 

and the Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, 

and expenses in the total amount of $7,601.14; 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this 

Decision and Entry, 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 EAJA award 

directly to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment 

signed by Plaintiff; and 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

October 28, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose

 United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

SCOTT EVANS, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-133 

 vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

 Defendant. 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 

Judge Michael J. Newman (Doc. #11), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such 

objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and 

Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #11) is ADOPTED in full; 

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability determination is AFFIRMED; and 

3. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

Date: November 2, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ____________________________________ 

 THOMAS M. ROSE 

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00225
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DOUGLAS M. KOHLS,
individually and in his capacity

as Executor of the Estate of
Corwin J. Kohls, Deceased,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING JOINT MOTION TO

RESCHEDULE THE TRIAL DATE (DOC. # 13) AND REVISE PRETRIAL
DEADLINES (DOC. #14)

Plaintiff, United States of America, and Defendant, Douglas M. Kohls, have
jointly filed a motion to reschedule the trial date, Doc. #13, and a motion to revise
the pretrial deadlines, Doc. #14. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for
December 3, 2019, and trial is scheduled for December 16, 2019. The parties have
filed these joint motions due to pending cross-motions for summary judgment on
the issue of the statute of limitations, Docs. ##7 and 8.

The joint motions of the parties, Docs. ##13 and 14, are SUSTAINED. A
conference call with counsel will be set thirty days following the Court's decision

on the pending motions for summary judgment.


Date: November 22, 2019 Ld %;,
il

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2264

In Re: HENRY MCKINLEY SCOTT, JR., 

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:10-cv-00061-HCM-FBS)

Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: February 8, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry McKinley Scott, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry McKinley Scott, Jr., petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. He 

seeks an order from this court directing the district court to 

act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district 

court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. This ruling is without 

prejudice to Scott’s right to file another mandamus petition in 

the future should there be future undue delay in the district 

court’s handling of Scott’s § 2241 petition. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
EVERYMD LLC, Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1924

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

, in No. IPR2014

- 00242.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

F RANK M ICHAEL W EYER
, TECHCOASTLAW, Los A ngeles, CA, for appellant.

H EIDI L YN K EEFE , Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for a ppellee. Also represented by R EUBEN H O -Y EN C HEN
, M ARK R. W EINSTEIN

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (O’M ALLEY
, W ALLACH
, and H UGHES
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 28 , 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wendy F. DiCicco, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |     |  |                          
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------
|Date: September 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA
|                         |  |     |  | Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA    
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


REGION 8 


1595 Wynkoop Street 

DENVER, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227 -8917 

http://ININW.epa.gov/region08 

Ref: 8P-AR JAN 2, (' 

Denise W. Kennedy 

Holland & Hart LLP 

555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 32

Denver, Colorado 80202 

00 

RE: Notification of Confidential Business 

Information Disclosure to Contractor 

Dear Ms. Kennedy: 

On December 6, 2010. the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a 

letter to Sargent & Lundy LLC requesting additional information pertaining to selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) technology for Basin Electric's Leland Olds Station Unit 2 in Stanton, North 

Dakota. Sargent & Lundy responded to EPA's December 6, 2010 letter on January 14,2011. In 

the letter Sargent & Lundy indicated that all the documents provided were to be treated as 

confidential business information (CBI). On January 3,20 II , EPA sent a letter to Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative requesting similar information to that in our December 6, 2010 letter. 

Following the procedures established under 40 CFR 2.301 (h)(2)(iii), we are writing to 

inform you that we are planning on furnishing all the documents provided by Sargent & Lundy 

to the contractor and subcontractor assisting us with the review of the cost analyses for the SC R 

technology for Leland Olds Station Unit 2. The contractor is RTI International and its 

subcontractor is Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., P.E. (consultant). RTI and its subcontractor have worked 

with EPA in the past and are certified to handle CBI materials. The contract for RTI is held by 

EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the contract information is as follows: 

"Economic Analyses and Control Strategy Development for Air Pollution Control Regulations," 

Work Assignment 4-95, EPA Contract EP-D-06-003 . The purpose ofRTI and its subcontractor 

reviewing the documents will be to assist EPA in its review of'this information and to provide 

EPA with comments on this material. 
If you have any comments concerning EPA Region 8 transferring to RTI, the documents 

provided by Sargent & Lundy in its January J4, 2011 letter please notit'y us within live business 

days from the date 0 f this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Gai I Fallon at 

(303) 312-628 \. 

Sincerely, 

/~~;{~ -' C-C~lIe A. Videti6h, Director 

Air Program 

cc: 	 Ms. Jill Liska, Sargent & Lundy 

Mr. Cris Miller. Basin Electric 

Mr. Terry O'Clair. North Dakota Department of Health 

2
From: Gail Fallon/R8/USEPA/US 

To: Jonah Staller/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Hans Buenning/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Aaron 

Worstell/R8/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 02/24/2012 03:31 PM 

Subject: FYI Fw: Big Brown and Monticello 

_____________________________ 

Gail Fallon 

Regional Haze Program Manager 

Air Quality Planning Unit (8P-AR) 

US EPA Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Phone: 303-312-6281 

Fax: 303-312-6064 

Email: Fallon.Gail@epa.gov 

----- Forwarded by Gail Fallon/R8/USEPA/US on 02/24/2012 03:31 PM ----- 

From: grano.doug@ecrweb.com 

To: Gail Fallon/R8/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 02/24/2012 03:05 PM 

Subject: Fwd: Re: Big Brown and Monticello 

Gail-- 

Some potentially helpful information from Region 6. Confirmation that Big Brown and 

Monitcello sell their fly ash (all units) and there have been no issues with ammonia 

contamination. The ash is somewhat different from Coal Creek's in that it is a blend in Texas. 

 --Doug 

----- Forwarded message from Joe Kordzi ----- 

Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:15:30 -0600 

From: Joe Kordzi 

Reply-To: Joe Kordzi 

Subject: Re: Big Brown and Monticello 

To: Doug 

Doug,

It took a week, but I finally got through to Luminant. I was able to keep the conversation hypothetical. All 

the units at Big Brown and Monticello sell their fly ash. They have not had any issues with ammonia 

contamination. However, they noted a few caveats, should their experience be applied elsewhere. They

note that the potential for ammonia contamination would be dependent on the amount injected - other 

units that use SNCR to control NOx to a higher degree than they do may have a greater potential for 

contamination. Also, they burn a mixture of lignite and PRB - other units that burn different coals would 

have different coal chemistries and may or may not have a greater propensity for ammonia 

contamination. For instance, they stated their coal is alkaline and thought that was somewhat 

responsible for the lack of contamination. I asked if they would be open to discussing specifics and their 

response was "maybe" but they may not be willing to share data. 
Regards, 

Joe 

" ... and miles to go before I sleep." 

-- Robert Frost

From: "Doug" <grano.doug@ecrweb.com>

To: Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/17/2012 11:11 AM

Subject: Big Brown and Monticello 

Joe— 

Good talking with you today. The questions we have are noted below. Thanks for your help. 

 --Doug 

Big Brown 1 & 2 and Monticello 1, 2 & 3 (all with SNCR) 

For which units is the fly ash marketable? 

For which units is some portion of the fly ash currently being sold? 

Are any of the units using ammonia mitigation technology?

----- End forwarded message -----
EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of
Transworld Benefits International, Inc. for the Quarter Ended September 30,
2003, I, Keith Romine Chief Financial Officer of Transworld Benefits
International, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

      1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
            30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
            for the period ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Transworld Benefits International, Inc.

Dated:  November 19, 2003

Transworld Benefits International, Inc.

By: /s/ Keith Romine
---------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 4

WESTERN DIVISION wh" . g
ifs

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:18-po-00055
Vv.
MOTION TO DISMISS
DOROTHY OLIVER,
Defendant.

The United States moves to dismiss the above-captioned case.
Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN
United States Attorney

s/ Timothy A, Landry
TIMOTHY A. LANDRY

Special Assistant United States Attorney
221 East Fourth Street, Suite 400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Office: (513) 684-3711
Timothy.Landry@usdoj.gov