alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18crl11
VS.
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DARYL IAN EVANS,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT LIMITED FURLOUGH
TO ATTEND TO CERTAIN PERSONAL MATTERS BEFORE
SURRENDERING TO UNITED STATES MARSHALS TO BEGIN SERVING
OF SENTENCE

The Defendant has been sentenced to a term of five years in the custody of the Attorney
General of the United States, the Bureau of Prisons.

Prior to being transported to his designated institution, it is the order of the Court that
Defendant receive a “furlough” of ten calendar days, during which he would reside with his
mother, Jackie Evans, 2065 Auburn Avenue, Dayton, Ohio, telephone number 937-540-5744. He
is to be on both electronic home monitoring (when at the residence set forth above) and GPS
surveillance when outside of same.

The release is for two purposes only. First, he is to make whatever arrangements are
necessary for the property he possesses, with his property manager, to the extent possible within
the residence at 2065 Auburn Avenue. Second, he is to be allowed to visit with the mother of his

child and his newborn child at the above address of his mother.


Not later than 4:00 p.m. on the tenth calendar day subsequent to his release on “furlough” he is to
surrender himself to the United States Marshals Service so that he can be transported to his

designated institution and begin his serving of his sentence.

LA Onn) baa
May 24, 2019 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record
U.S. Marshals Service
U.S. Pretrial Services
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E R IC K D A V ID L O P E Z , A K A S p o o k y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10326 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 3 4 2 - SI ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S us a n I l l s t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E r i c k D a vi d L ope z appe a l s f r om hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 360- da ys e nt e nc e f or b e in g a n ille g a l a lie n in p o s s e s s io n o f af ir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED SEP 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10326 2 § 922( g) ( 5) ( A ) , a nd f

ori l l e ga l r e e ntry , i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. L o p ez seek s t o ch al l en g e th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o sup p ress e vi de nc e of

af i r e a rm di s c ove r e d dur i ng atr a f f i c s t op. T he gove rnm e ntc ont e nds thatL op ez ’ s app ea l i s m oo tbecause he s t i pu l at ed thathe po ss es se d a fi re arm w hi c h i n turn f

orm e d the ba s i s of

hi s c onvi c t i on. G i vi ng L ope z the be ne f i tof the d o u b t th a t h is ap p e a l is n o t m o o t, s e e U ni te d States v . L ars on , 302 F . 3d 1016, 1020- 22 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( di s c us s i ng w he n a n appe a l m a ybe m ootf ol l ow i ng a stip u lati o n ), w e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin d en yin g L o p ez ’s m o tio n to s up p r e s s , se e U ni ted States v. W

al lace , 21 3 F . 3d 12 16 , 12 20 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). AF F I RME D.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN RATCLIFF, 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-745

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Jolson

MOUNT CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties second Joint Motion to Extend Remaining 

Case Deadlines. (Doc. 17). The parties seek a sixty-day extension of the discovery and 

dispositive motion deadlines because they “have decided to explore mediation of their dispute at 

this time rather than incur additional time and expense.” (Id. at 2). For good cause shown, the 

Joint Motion is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is extended to July 30, 2019, and the 

dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 27, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 30, 2019 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00745-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 18 Filed: 05/30/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 62
Exhibit 10(f)
                                         REVISION AGREEMENT
     Mercedes-Benz                       INSTALLMENT CREDIT TRANSACTION
     Credit Corporation              Original Acct # SEE SCHEDULE DCN # N/A

FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, it is mutually agreed that the Retail Installment
Contract - Security Agreement (Contract) dated SEE SCHEDULE, by and between
SEE ORIGINAL CONTRACT as Seller, Seller's interest having been asigned to
Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation (MCBCC), and OTR Express, Inc. as purchaser
covering:
SEE ORIGINAL CONTRACT

be and hereby amended in that the gross remaining balance of $ SEE SCHEDULE
due on the Contract shall be payable as follows:

subject to final resolution of late fees and remaining balance questions.

SEE SCHEDULE monthly payments of $ SEE SCHEDULE, commencing SEE SCHEDULE, and
continuing on the same date every month until the account is paid in full.

Except for the modifications stated above, the Contract shall remain in full
force and effect.  This agreement will become effective upon acceptance by
MBCC.

Total Interest Charges Due                  $    SEE SCHEDULE
Late Charges/Misc. Charges                  $    SEE SCHEDULE
Amount to be paid at a later date           $    SEE SCHEDULE
Amount to be paid up front                  $    0.00

PURCHASER : OTR Express, Inc.               APPROVAL:
                                            Mercedes-Benz Corporation
Signature:  /s/ Steven W. Ruben             By: /s/ Martha Odin/sk
Title:       CFO                            Title:  Fleet Manager
Date: 7/25/00                               Date: 7/27/00





GROSS REMAINING BALANCE   $4,077,889.39
PAYMENT AMOUNT            $  138,825.85
EXTENTION FEES DUE        $   68,772.54
FEES TO BE PAID
OVER 3 MONTHS             $   22,926.53
LATE CHARGES              $   14,277.35
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN CORTLAND,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JEFFREY SCOTT MYERS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-35973

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05489-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Brian Cortland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) alleging that defendants failed to

comply with Washington’s Public Records Act. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

NOV 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-35973

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state

a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cortland’s claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 because Cortland failed to allege that defendants deprived him of a federal

right. See Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (“To make

out a cause of action under section 1983, plaintiffs must plead that (1) the

defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured

by the Constitution or federal statutes.”). 

The district court properly dismissed Cortland’s claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985(3) because Cortland failed to allege that racial or other class-based

discriminatory animus motivated the alleged conspiracy to deprive him of his

rights. See Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 267-68

(1993) (to state a claim under § 1985(3), “a plaintiff must show, inter alia, . . . that

‘some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus

[lay] behind the conspirators’ action’” (alteration in original; citation omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortland’s motion

for reconsideration because Cortland did not allege any stand-alone state law

claims in his second amended complaint. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty.,
3 11-35973

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing for an abuse

of discretion and setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 456 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 456

   To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans 
         eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2009

 Mr. Wittman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Small Business Act to make service-disabled veterans 
         eligible under the 8(a) business development program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disabled Veteran Small Business 
Eligibility Expansion Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS UNDER 8(A) PROGRAM.

    Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by inserting after ``small business 
        concern owned and controlled by socially and economically 
        disadvantaged individuals'' the following: ``, or a small 
        business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled 
        veterans,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4)--
                    (A) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
                subparagraph (D); and
                    (B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
                following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) For purposes of this section--
                            ``(i) the term `socially and economically 
                        disadvantaged small business concern' includes 
                        a small business concern owned and controlled 
                        by service-disabled veterans; and
                            ``(ii) the term `disadvantaged owner' 
                        includes an owner who is a service-disabled 
                        veteran, in the case of a small business 
                        concern owned and controlled by service-
                        disabled veterans.''.
                                 <all>
```
## Support Documents for

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on

Premanufacture Notice (PMN)

P-03-248

EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT -2011-0577

## Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for

PMN P-03-248

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for

P MN P-03-248

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for

PMN P-03-248

## A-001

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-03-248

## A-002

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-03-248See changes in **bold** to water releases (made 2/11/03).

DRAFT

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 03-0248 ENGINEER: Sahmel/CLH

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No

General Eqp.:

Plastic gloves/safety glasses/use with adequate

ventilation, especially where drum or tank wageons are

being opened

Respirator:

NIOSH-approved respirator if adequate ventilation can

not be provided at any time

Health Effects: May cause eye irritation

TLV/PEL (LVE or raw materials): Not established

CRSS:

Chemical Category:

VP: <1E-06 torr @25 E C

S-H

2 O: dispersible

MW: 432.65

Phys State: N

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns):

Related cases: L02-0354 (same compound)

Ground Water: moderate

Health: 1-2 (inhalation only)

Eco: 3 (all releases to water)

PBT: P1B1T1

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 1

PMN: 03-0248

ASSUMPTIONS:POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEWINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3

PMN: 03-0248

USE:

Site/Location:

Days/yr:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES:

:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 4

LVE: 03-0248

USE: (continued)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE:

Tot. # of workers: (submission)

Days/yr: (submission)

Inhalation:

Number of w la

Basis:

Note:

INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW

1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit

or data not specific to that industry. Yes

2) (a) Exposure Level > 1 mg/day Yes

Or

(b) Hazard rating for health of 2 or greater No

**Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired: Yes** (Both criteria met)

Dermal: Not required, per SAT(Telephone Log)

PMN: 03-0248

Call By: Chris Hibshman (Eastern Research Group for

EPA/OPPT/CEB)

Call To:

Submitter:

Date: 1/15/03

Time:

Q1:

A1:

Q2:

A2:

## A-003

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-03-248
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

-vs- Case No. 3:18-CR-113 

PATRICIA MARIE MULLINS (1)

DUSTIN JAMES VANWEY (3) 

Defendant.

 

ORDER

 

On or about October 3, 2019, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the

United States moved to dismiss the indictment in this matter as to defendants Patricia Marie Mullins

and Dustin James Vanwey only. The Court hereby GRANTS this motion and dismisses the

indictment against Patricia Marie Mullins and Dustin James Vanwey only.

s/Thomas M. Rose

____________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2435

GEORGE SYLVESTER FLOYD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus THOMAS E. WHITE, Secretary of the Army; CLAUDE WILLIAMS, Adjutant General, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-362-2) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 21, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Sylvester Floyd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark David Maxwell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Sylvester Floyd, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss his Title VII action. The Appellees have moved to dismiss Floyd’s appeal as untimely. We grant the Appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Floyd’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 27, 2001. Floyd’s notice of appeal was filed on November 27, 2001. Because Floyd failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the Appellees’ motion to 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
#### Terry MOSS v. STATE of Arkansas

705 S.W.2d 892

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 31, 1986

*R. Paul Hughes, III,*for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Theodore Holder,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

*471Per Curiam.

Appellant, Terry Moss, by his attorney, R. Paul Hughes, III, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

The motion admits that the record was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 20, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-20-1997
<CASH>                                       4,736,479
<SECURITIES>                                   212,062
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,935,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                   177,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,115,760
<PP&E>                                     278,466,358
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,838,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             277,212,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,422,554
<BONDS>                                    167,882,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  90,615,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               277,212,239
<SALES>                                     20,694,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,913,687
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,245,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,866,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,249,143
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,210,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,039,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                   (1,164,114)
<NET-INCOME>                                   875,029
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
1

APPENDIX E 

NOAA Satellite Services – Smoke Detection 

[www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/FIRE/DATA/SMOKE/2008; map.ngdc.noaa.gov/website/firedetects/viewer.htm] 

[For space considerations, Smoke Text Products were edited to show only California and related narratives] 

JUNE 2008
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JULY 2008
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Thursday, July 25, 2008 
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

AUGUST 2008
46
47

 
48
Amendment to Offer Letter - Jean-Frederic Viret



 Exhibit 10.81 
 

 
 November 17, 2008 
 Jean-Frederic Viret 
 Dear Jean: 
 Anesiva, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to offer you an amendment (the “Amendment”) to your employment terms, as set forth in the offer letter between you and the Company, dated November 21, 2002 (the “Offer
Letter”). The employment terms set forth in this Amendment are effective as of November 17, 2008 (the “Amendment Date”). Unless this Amendment specifically states that it supersedes a term in the Offer Letter, the terms of the
Offer Letter shall remain binding and in full force and effect. 
 1. Retention Bonus. You will be eligible to receive a Retention
Bonus in an amount equal to two (2) months of your base salary currently in effect, to be earned and payable on the following schedule: (i) 50% of the bonus on November 17, 2008, (ii) 25% of the bonus on November 26, 2008,
and (iii) 25% of the bonus on December 15, 2008. 
 In the event that you resign from employment with the Company for any reason
before February 9, 2009, you agree that you will repay to the Company this Retention Bonus amount paid to you (“Retention Repayment Amount”) pursuant to this Section. Any Retention Repayment Amount that must be repaid pursuant to this
paragraph will be paid within thirty (30) days following your last date of employment with the Company. 
 In the event that you are
involuntarily terminated from employment with the Company, you will not be liable for repayment of the Retention Bonus. 
 2. Employment
Relationship. Your employment with the Company is and continues to be “at will” as described in your Offer Letter. 
 3. Supersedes. This Amendment supersedes and replaces any prior agreements, representations or understandings, whether written, oral or implied, between you and the Company regarding this subject matter described herein, provided
that unless specifically superseded by this Amendment, the terms of the Offer Letter remain in full force and effect. 
 We hope that you
find the forgoing terms acceptable. You may indicate your agreement with these terms and accept this Amendment by signing and dating the Amendment and returning it to me. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	ANESIVA, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Michael L. Kranda
		 	Michael L. Kranda
		 	President & Chief Executive Officer


 I have read, and accept and agree to, the terms of this Amendment to my Offer Letter: 
  

	
	/s/ Jean-Frederic Viret
	Jean-Frederic Viret

 Dated: 11-18-08