alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

STEVEN W. HENSLEY, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-223 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

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

Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. #12). 

Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees in the amount of 

$2,920.00 in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims Plaintiff may have 

under the EAJA in the above case. 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 his attorney, and can be offset to satisfy pre-existing 

debt that Plaintiff owes the United States under Astrue v. Ratliff, 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, the Defendant agrees to direct that the award 

be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to an EAJA assignment duly signed by 

Plaintiff and counsel. 
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

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

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #12) is accepted 

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

and expenses in the total amount of $2,920.00; 

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 counsel; and 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March 7, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose

 United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0620

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STEVEN JAMES CLIFTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 23, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2022

11/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0620
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

STEVEN B. BARGER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FIRST DATA CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 1:18-mc-10 

Judge Susan J. Dlott 

ORDER DENYING INTERESTED 

PARTY’S MOTION FOR 72(A) AND 

AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

ORDER TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 

 This matter is before the Court on Interested Party Julie K. Kelly’s Pro Se Motion for 72a 

(Doc. 24), appealing the Magistrate Judge’s Order compelling Ms. Kelly to appear for a 

deposition in this matter (Doc. 21). Defendants’ oppose Ms. Kelly’s Motion for 72a (Doc. 25). 

Also pending are Ms. Kelly’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 7), Ms. Kelly’s Motion for Protective 

Order (Doc. 27), Ms. Kelly’s Motion to Reconsider Obtaining Electronic Case Filing Rights 

(Doc. 28) and Defendants’ Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 26). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the Court considered this matter and 

concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 21) is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary 

to law. In an abundance of caution—and because the Interested Party is proceeding pro se—the 

Court thoroughly reviewed not only the Interested Party’s Motion and the Defendants’ Response 

but also every document filed in this miscellaneous action. After doing so, the Court hereby 

orders as follows: 

1. Ms. Kelly must appear for a deposition on October 15, 2018 at noon to be held at the 

United States Potter Stewart Courthouse, Room 203, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, 

Ohio 45202. Ms. Kelly must bring any and all documents in her possession as requested 

in the Subpoena previously issued for the August 31, 2018 deposition. The deposition 

Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/09/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 772
will conclude no later than 5:00 p.m. Unless otherwise agreed, Ms. Kelly shall be 

allowed two five minute breaks and one fifteen minute break during the five hour 

deposition. 

2. Defendants must reimburse Ms. Kelly for reasonable child care expenses. 

3. Ms. Kelly’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 7), Motion for 72a (Doc. 24), Motion for 

Protective Order (Doc. 27), and Motion to Reconsider Obtaining Electronic Case Filing 

Rights (Doc. 28) are denied. 

4. Defendants’ Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 26) is also denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: 10/9/18 ___s/Susan J. Dlott_____ 

 Judge Susan J. Dlott 

 United States District Court 

Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 29 Filed: 10/09/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 773
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, David R. Odenath, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within such entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2008 |  |                                      
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ David R. Odenath, Jr.            
|                      |  | David R. Odenath, Jr.                
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00147

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF A.W., A C HILD §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 78th District Court

of Wichita County (12790

- JR

- B)

October 18, 2018

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

Th is court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

_____________ _____ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
EX-10.4  AGREEMENT: GARBALIZER MACHINERY CORP AND COMPANY  AGREEMENT  This agreement entered into the date below shown between Garbalizer Machinery Corporation, a Utah corporation [Garbalizer] and Garb-Oil & Power Corporation, a Utah corporation [Garb-Oil] Whereas Garbalizer, on February 25, 1999 entered into a stock exchange agreement with RecycleNet Corporation of Ontario, Canada [RecycleNet], and Whereas Garbalizer and RecycleNet agreed that Garbalizer would have, prior to the closing of said agreement, the right to sell and convey all its existing assets (including the Garbalizer name and logo, patents, machinery designs, and contract rights) to Garb-Oil in exchange for Garb-Oils assumption of existing indebtedness of Garbalizer in the approximate amount of $500,000.00 (U.S.), and Whereas Garb-Oil is desirous of obtaining said existing assets, the Garbalizer name and logo, patents, machinery designs, and contract rights and further, is desirous of assuming the existing indebtedness of Garbalizer in the approximate amount of $500,000.00 (U.S.), and Whereas the board of directors of both Garbalizer and Garb-Oil have by resolution authorized their respective corporation to enter into this transaction and have authorized the officers of their respective corporations to perform all acts necessary and to execute all documents necessary to effect this transaction, therefore Garbalizer, by these presents, hereby convoys all existing assets including all right, title, and interest in and to the Garbalizer name and logo, patents [as identified in the attached exhibit], machinery designs, and contract rights by it possessed. Garb-Oil, by these presents, and as consideration for the assets above referenced, hereby assumes all existing indebtedness of Garbalizer in the approximate amount of $500,000.00 (U.S.). Dated the 19th day of March, 1999.  GARBALIZER MACHINERY CORPORATION
        ATTEST:
  By/s/ John C. Brewer
        /s/ Charles K. LaverPresident
        SecretaryGARB-OIL & POWER CORPORATION
        ATTEST:By/s/ John C. Brewer
        /s/ Charles K. LaverPresident
        Secretary
       EXHIBIT TO GARBALIZER/GARB-OIL AGREEMENT  GARBALIZER SHREDDER PATENTS  U.S. PATENTS  patent #3578252patent #3708127patent #3762655patent #3840187patent #3893635patent #3951346patent #4059236patent #4082232patent #4099678patent #4125228patent #4176800patent #4205799patent #4350308patent #4927088
   INTERNATIONAL PATENTS  Canada
        patent #1018958Canada
        patent #1137949Switzerland
        patent #555195Japan
        patent #924581England
        patent #1441783France
        patent #74-02442
   Garbalizer Machinery Corporation has the following machinery patents which it intends to develop and market as funds become available:   Mechanical Waste Receiver
        patent #3660038Waste Remover Vehicle [packer truck]
        patent #3831789Air Classification
        patent #3856217Refuse Processing Equipment [mangler]
        patent #3966129Waste Mangler System and Structure
        patent #3993256
NUMBER 13-22-00049-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

MARIO ANGEL DIAZ, Appellant,

v.

MARINA DIAZ, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 444th 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 provided 
2

reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

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

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

of time nor filed his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

18th day of August, 2022.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                          46,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     50,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,433
<PP&E>                                         114,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,294
<BONDS>                                          8,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,811
<SALES>                                         96,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,693
<CGS>                                           69,719
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (347)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,314
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,259
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

See Supplementary Information section for applicable date(s).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Andrea M. Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *www.treas.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On January 20, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
      ( print page 4996)    
      ( print page 4997)    
Dated: January 20, 2022.

Andrea M. Gacki,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 2022-01931 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

______________________

2018-2067

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

00037.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

CRAIG R. KAUFMAN, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, 

Redwood City, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by JERRY CHEN. 

 NAVEEN MODI, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by PAUL ANDERSON,

CHETAN BANSAL, STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, JOSEPH PALYS. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 September 6, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
E NEY ’ ~ENERAI. OF a ’ EXAS GEWLD C. MANN AUSTIN II.TICXAS D

-orable Tom De-, He61b6r St&3 Beard of c0latro1 Austin, Texas Dear Sir: OpinionRo. O-3294 Rer Authority

to approve

rooounts for automobile

repairwork done for the State Park6 Boardby a garage ouned by a member of the Parks Board. He have your letterof ldaroh 17, 1941 outliniag~

the following

facts: OThe Terns State Parks Board has presented to the Claims.

Division

of thin Board for Lt6 approvalcertainInvoicesfor repair work and parts installad in certain automobile6

and trucks belonging to the Parks Board.. These iwoioes were rendered bythe J. V. Ash Xotor~ Come of Bastrop, Texanwhioh is ,ovmed by I&. J. V. Ash, a miimber

of the Park6 Board,and have been approved for paym6nt

by Mr. Ash in his capacity

as a member of the said Board. The partsware billnd at the 66m6 discount

which the Statenow seoures under it6 auto parts oontract, Iut otherwise

there was no~oompetitiw element in the trauoaotion astiis Boardhas no meau8 to controllabor charges."

You requestour opinionin response to the following

questions: "1. Can this Board legallyapprovefor psynmnt the abovementionedinvoices whioh were both rendered and approved

w a memtir of the State Parks Board? "2. Could this Board legallyapprovefor payment said invoicesif they were approved

by some othermember of the State Parks Board thanthe sellerhimsslf2" Liabilities

of the kind under ocnsideration are ordinarily

incurred by the respeotive

state Deparhaents.Article 634, ReVised Civil Statutes, providing

that "The Board of Controlshall purchase all supplies

used by each Department

of the State Government" hardlycould be said to take out of the hands of a department the power to-incur obligations

for autcmobile

repair ucrk. Such is the practical oonstrvotion

given by the statute by the various departments

of the State government owr many yearn. Applying what we haoq just said to tlm presentcase, the purchase

of thisrepair work was by the State Parks Board,

not by the Board of Control.Honorable Tom Ib harry,page 2 (013294)

Such b6iag true,ne ar6 compelled to ad~sethat the olaimmay not be set up for payment, Mwth6r approved

by Mr. Ash or by any other mQnber of the State Parks Board, and w.6 anmer both of your quentioas in the negative. we enclose **aopies** of our **~OpiIliOnS Nos.**  **0-878, &10$4,**  and O-260311

whioh suffioiemfly explainour reason6for &h6 above holding. YOU will note the differenoe betueeath6 faotn ia opinion Ho. O-2SOSAand **in this**  **OM.** There the purohase -6 made w the Board of Control.

Your6verytruly ATTORNEYGENERAL

OF TEXAS By /s/Glenn R. Lanrls Glean R. tii6 **A5.ssist~mt** GRL: AMM:egr APPRUVED

APRIL 16, 1941 /a/ Grovw Seller6 FIRST ASSISTAN!T AT!IOR3EY

GENEXAL APPROVED **OpilliOrp comittee**  ByBWB ChaiZWl-
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 Quarterly Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James A. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. Based on my knowledge, the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and





2. The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.








Dated: November 15, 2010
/s/ JAMES A. JOYCEJames A. JoyceChief Executive OfficerAethlon Medical, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Aethlon Medical, Inc. and will be retained by Aethlon Medical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.