alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7633

JOEL MCPHERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus JOSEPH SMITH, Warden, Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-3648-6-24AK) Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel McPherson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joel McPherson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeMadley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n , 278 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1004 (2002). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McPherson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

JAHANSHAH KOHANSIMEH, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-144 

vs. 

FRANKLIN HALLEY, District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 10) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael J. 

Newman (Doc. #10), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties 

have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for filing such objections 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. #10) is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant’s unopposed motion to 

dismiss (Doc. #8) is GRANTED; and (3) this case is TERMINATED on the Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: September 4, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
EX10_5


		
			Exhibit 10.5
		

		
			 
		

		
			SENIOR HOUSING PROPERTIES TRUST
		

		
			 
		

		
			Summary of Trustee Compensation
		

		
			 
		

		
			The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Senior Housing Properties Trust, or the Company, for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $40,000, plus a fee of $1,000 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,000 fees are payable if more than one board and board committee meetings are held on the same date.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $12,500, $7,500 and $7,500, respectively.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			The lead independent trustee, who is an Independent Trustee, receives an additional annual fee of $10,000.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,500 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 9 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 9

            Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2019

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to 
                        lie over, under the rule

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the daily meeting of the Senate be 12:01 p.m. unless 
otherwise ordered.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Universal Health Realty Income Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan B. Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust at the end of, and for the period covered by the Report.



/s/ Alan B. MillerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 13, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and
will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT the undersigned directors and officers of
Zaxis International Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby constitute and
appoint Charles L. Maimbourg a true and lawful individual in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, to sign his name to Annual Reports on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and to any and all amendments, of said Company, and to cause
the same to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said individual full power and authority to do and perform any act and thing
necessary and proper to be done in the premises, as fully and to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned could do if personally present, and the undersigned
hereby ratifies and confirms all that said individuals or any one of them shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated: March 24, 2000

/S/Ronald Hanson                    Chairman of the Board     March 25, 2000
---------------------------
Ronald Hanson

/S/Stephen Anderson                 Director                  March 25, 2000
---------------------------
Stephen Anderson

/S/Dr. Mal Eutick, OAM              Director                  March 28, 2000
---------------------------
Dr. Mal Eutick, OAM

/S/Steven Ficyk                     Director                  March 24, 2000
---------------------------
Steven Ficyk

/S/Melvin Weisblatt                 Director                  March 24, 2000
---------------------------
Melvin Weisblatt

/S/John Hrobsky                     President & Chief         March 24, 2000
---------------------------         Executive Officer
John Hrobsky
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

IZELL BROWN, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-569 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Vascura 

FRANCIS T. VENABLE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On June 11, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma 

Pauperis be granted and that the Court permit Plaintiff to proceed on his excessive force claim 

against Defendant Venable and to the extent Plaintiff intends to pursue claims against the 

individuals listed as witnesses, any claims against those individuals be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted. (See Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. 

4). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order and Report and 

Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order and 

Report and Recommendation and Order. (See Doc. 5). The Court will consider the matter de 

novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 In Plaintiff’s objections, he further explains that the other five individuals named are 

merely witnesses and requests subpoenas be served on them. Also, in his objections, Plaintiff 

requests a temporary restraining order. However, these requests are not properly before the 

Court. Therefore, the requests are denied, subject to refiling as a proper motion. 
2 

 Therefore, for the reasons stated in detail in the Order and Report and Recommendation, 

this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED. 

The Order and Report and Recommendation, Document 4, is ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The 

individuals listed on Plaintiff’s Complaint as witnesses are hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff may 

proceed with his excessive force claim against Defendant Venable. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 4 and 5 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the 
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 (unaudited) and
the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Three Months
Ended March 31, 1997 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statments.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      2,196
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                  488
<INVENTORY>                                 3,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            9,294
<PP&E>                                      1,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             23,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,936
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       61
<OTHER-SE>                                 21,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               23,106
<SALES>                                     3,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,571
<CGS>                                       1,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                29
<INCOME-TAX>                                   26
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      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 on Form 10-KSB (the “Annual Report”) of China
      Sky One Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, Liu Yan-Qing, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Registrant,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.




By:
            /s/
              Liu
              Yan-QingLiu
                Yan-Qing
              Chief
                Executive Officer and President
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              Dated
                this31stday
                of March, 2008
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4570 

To reauthorize the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2010 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the United States Commission on Civil 

Rights, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Commis5 sion on Civil Rights Reauthorization Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 The Civil Rights Commission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 

8 1975 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 5 and 6 and 

9 inserting the following: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4570 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated, to carry 

3 out this Act $19,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 

4 through 2014.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS. 

6 Subsection (b) of section 2 of the Civil Rights Com7 mission Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975) is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘Thereafter’’ and all that follows through the end 

9 of the subsection and inserting ‘‘A vacancy existing on or 

10 after the date of the enactment of the United States Com11 mission on Civil Rights Reauthorization Act of 2010 shall 

12 be filled by the President by and with the advice and con13 sent of the Senate.’’. 

14 SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORTS. 

15 Section 3(c)(1) of the Civil Rights Commission Act 

16 of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975a(c)(1)) is amended by striking 

17 ‘‘one report’’ and inserting ‘‘2 reports’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23 (ii)

To the Board of Directors
General Electric Capital Services, Inc.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement  (No.
33-7348) on Form S-3 of General Electric Capital  Services,  Inc., of our report
dated  February 13,  1998,  relating to the  statement of financial  position of
General  Electric  Capital  Services,  Inc. and  consolidated  affiliates  as of
December  31, 1997 and 1996 and the related  statements  of current and retained
earnings  and cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended
December 31, 1997, and related  schedules,  which report appears in the December
31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of General Electric Capital Services, Inc.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
March 26, 1998
NO. 12-18-00289-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ELEUTERIO SALMERON-GOMEZ, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Eleuterio Salmeron-Gomez appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated, third 

or more. According to the trial court’s certification, Appellant waived the right to appeal. The 

certification was signed by Appellant and his counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The record 

also contains an express waiver of the right to appeal, which is also signed by Appellant and his 

counsel.

When the defendant is the appellant, the record must include the trial court’s certification 

of the defendant’s right of appeal. Id. This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that 

shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. Because 

the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to appeal his conviction, we dismiss the appeal.

Opinion delivered November 5, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 5, 2018

NO. 12-18-00289-CR

ELEUTERIO SALMERON-GOMEZ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0355*18)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
<PAGE>




Exhibit 11.1



                           DESTRON FEARING CORPORATION

             Calculation of Basic And Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Common and 
                             Common Equivalent Share
                     (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Quarter Ended March 31,   Six Months Ended March 31,
                                              -----------------------   --------------------------
                                                1998        1997             1998         1997
                                               ------      ------           -------      -------
<S>                                            <C>         <C>             <C>           <C>
                                             
    Net income (loss)                             ($70)      $201            ($482)         $282 
                                                ------     ------          -------       -------
                                                ------     ------          -------       -------
                                             

    Weighted average number of common
      and common equivalent shares
      outstanding:
                                                
        Weighted average number of               
        common shares outstanding                13,299    12,766           13,296       12,205 

        Dilutive effect of stock options and
        warrants after application of the
        treasury stock method                        --       244               --           244 
                                                 ------    ------           -------      -------
                                                 13,299    13,010            13,296       12,449 
                                                 ------    ------           -------      -------
                                                 ------    ------           -------      -------

    Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per
      common and common equivalent share         ($0.01)    $0.02            ($0.04)       $0.02
                                                 ------    ------           -------      -------
                                                 ------    ------           -------      -------
</TABLE>

                                      -15-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

KENNETH GENTRY, $ Case No. 1:18-cv-318
Petitioner, Judge Matthew W. McFarland
v. :
WARDEN, CORRECTIONAL
RECEPTION CENTER,
Respondent.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (Docs. 15, 18) AND ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 13)

This action is before the Court on Petitioner Kenneth Gentry’s Objections, filed
June 20 and June 28, 2019 (Docs. 15, 18), to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz’s Report
and Recommendation, filed June 5, 2019 (Doc. 13). Magistrate Judge Merz recommended
that Gentry’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed
with prejudice. (Doc. 13 at 11). Gentry objected, albeit in an untimely manner, to
Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report & Recommendation, which is ripe for the Court's review.

Gentry’s objections re-argue that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary and that State v. Kosto requires the vacating of his conviction, see 2018-Ohio-
1925, {| 2, appeal not allowed, 2018-Ohio-3450, {| 2, 153 Ohio St. 3d 1469, 106 N.E.3d 66.
Gentry also repeats his general assertions pertaining to the Fourth Amendment and
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). None of these objections, however, confront the

reasoning or conclusions of Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report and Recommendation.


Gentry fails to identify anything specific he believes may be incorrect in Magistrate Judge
Merz’s findings. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). Such nonspecific
objections are, in effect, restatements of prior arguments and amount to a failure to object.
Bradley v. United States, No. 18-1444, 2018 WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018); Cole
v. Yukins, 7 F. App'x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001).

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the
Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon such review, the Court
finds that Gentry’s Objections (Docs. 15, 18) are not well-taken and are accordingly
OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 13) in its
entirety and Gentry’s petition for habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

wy MMM ELS

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND