alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 2:21-cv-02542-EAS-CMV Doc #: 2 (Court only) Filed: 05/17/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID

#: 75

United States District Court

Southern District of Ohio

Related Case Memorandum

Civil Cases

Judge Sargus, Judge Watson, Magistrate Judge Deavers, and Magistrate

TO: Judge Vascura

FROM: Donald A. Fitzgerald 111 , Deputy Clerk

DATE: 5/17/2021

SUBJECT: Case Caption: Alf et al v. The Ohio State University

CASE: Case Number: Doc. 2:21-cv-2542 1

Judge Edmund A. Sargus and Magistrate Judge Chelsey

DISTRICT JUDGE: M. Vascura

File Date: 5/14/2021

This memorandum is to notify you that the civil cover sheet on the above referenced case reflects

the following alleged related case(s):

Related Case(s):

Case Caption: Garrett et al v. The Ohio State University

Case Number: Doc. 2;18-cv-692 1 District Judge: Watson

File Date: 7/16/2018 Magistrate Judge: Deavers

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 05/19/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1325
Case: 2:21-cv-02542-EAS-CMV Doc #: 2 (Court only) Filed: 05/17/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID

#: 76

Memo Re: Related Civil Cases

Page 2

The District Judges having conferred, we respond to Case Administrator

as follows:

Judges' Response:

Q We agree that the cases are not related and that the subject case should remain

with the Judge to whom it is assigned.

We agree that the cases are related and that the subject case should be

transferred to the docket of Judge Watson

Q We agree that although the cases ^ related, the subject case nevertheless should

remain with the Judge to whom it was assigned.

n We are unable to agree and will accept any decision made by the Chief Judge.

Q I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases

are not related.

D I am the Judge on both/all of the listed cases and have determined that the cases

are related and they shall both/all remain on my docket.

n Other Direction of Judge: ^

s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 5/17/2021

United States DistricUudge

niied States Disltrict Judge

United States District Judge

Cc: Courtroom Deputies

Revised 7/19/2012

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 05/19/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1326
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 1881

_____________________________
D ARRELL U SRY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Ronald Flury , Judge

. April 12, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Darrell Usry, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT  21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                           --------------------------



                  P.A.M. Transport, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

              P.A.M. Special Services, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

               P.A.M. Dedicated Services, Inc. (Ohio Corporation)

             P.A.M. Logistics Services, Inc. (Arkansas Corporation)

                        T.T.X., Inc. (Texas Corporation)

                  Choctaw Express, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)

                 Choctaw Brokerage, Inc. (Oklahoma Corporation)

               Allen Freight Services, Inc. (Missouri Corporation)

                  Decker Transport Co., Inc. (Ohio Corporation)
U.S. District Court 

Southern District of Ohio 

Western Division 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Case No. 1:18-cr-00109-TSB-8

: (Judge Black)

Plaintiff, :

:

-vs- :

: DEFENDANT, ROMAN IAKOVLEV'S, 

ROMAN IAKOVLEV : ADDENDUM TO MOTION FOR BOND

Defendant. :

Now comes Defendant, Roman Iakovlev, by and through counsel, and respectfully moves this 

honorable Court to release him on bond with any conditions that the Court deems appropriate. Defendant 

previously filed a motion for bond, citing the fact that he was not a danger to the community and that his 

appearance at all court proceedings would occur. Since that time, Defendant has received voluminous 

discovery, over 1,000,000 documents, which require the attorney and Mr. Iakovlev to go through. 

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to go through all of the discovery by visiting Mr. Iakovlev at the Butler 

County Jail. It is believed that numerous hours need to be set aside, preferably in a conference room at 

counsel's office, to go through discovery in order to properly prepare a defense for this case. Therefore, it is 

respectfully requested that this Court grant the bond as previously requested imposing whatever restrictions 

this Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

 s/Edward J. McTigue 

Edward J. McTigue (0002077)

Attorney for Defendant

810 Sycamore Street, Sixth Floor

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Telephone: (513) 338-5611

Facsimile: (513) 241-1572

E-mail: ejmctigue@cincilaw.net

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 71 Filed: 11/15/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 479
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed on the 15th day of November 2018, the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the Assistant U.S. 

Attorney, 221 E. Fourth Street, Suite 400, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 and is being served upon Roman Iakovlev via 

ordinary U.S. Mail at the Butler County Jail, 705 Hanover Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011.

 s/Edward J. McTigue 

Edward J. McTigue (0002077)

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 71 Filed: 11/15/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 480
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

605 

CA 11-02161 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF LOLA

BANKS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PERSONAL NEEDS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF 

CHARLIE B.H., AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON, 

RESPONDENT.

JOY A. KENDRICK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

PHILIP A. MILCH, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph R.

Glownia, J.), entered May 27, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental

Hygiene Law article 81. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied

petitioner’s request for additional counsel fees for Joy A. Kendrick,

Esq. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the second ordering

paragraph is vacated and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie

County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article

81, petitioner, the property guardian of a now-deceased incapacitated

person, appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied petitioner’s

request for additional counsel fees. At the outset, we conclude that

Supreme Court erred in determining that the rules embodied in 22 NYCRR

part 36 govern the appointment of petitioner’s attorney. Pursuant to

22 NYCRR 36.1 (b) (2) (i) (A), the rules embodied in part 36 “shall

not apply to . . . the appointment of, or the appointment of any

persons or entities performing services for, . . . a guardian who is a

relative of . . . the subject of the guardianship proceeding” and,

here, the record establishes that petitioner was the incapacitated

person’s third cousin. We also note that neither of the exceptions

set forth in 22 NYCRR 36.1 (b) applies to this case (see 22 NYCRR 36.2

[c] [6], [7]). 

We further conclude that the court erred in summarily denying

petitioner’s request for additional counsel fees. Instead, the court

should have permitted petitioner to render a final report and to

petition for judicial settlement thereof (see Mental Hygiene Law §

81.44 [f]), as well as to seek a determination on all administrative

expenses, including counsel fees incurred in providing services to

petitioner (see generally Matter of Albert K. [D’Angelo], 96 AD3d 750,
-2- 605 

CA 11-02161 

752-753), before summarily concluding that petitioner’s attorney is

not entitled to compensation beyond the $28,845 that she has already

been paid with respect to this matter. In view of our determination,

we do not address petitioner’s remaining contentions. 

Entered: July 5, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,277,300                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,622                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,280,922                       0
<PP&E>                                      61,100,449                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,795,603                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,585,768                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,280,922                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,304,846                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,585,768                       0
<SALES>                                      3,394,310               8,224,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,402,751               8,242,633
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,419                 170,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,346,332               8,071,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,346,332               8,071,758
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,346,332               8,071,758
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.558                   1.345
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.558                   1.345


</TABLE>
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 124 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2022 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 2617. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2617, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following corrections: 

5 (1) Strike all after the enacting clause through 

6 page 3, line 19 (the first sections 1 and 2). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HCON 124 RDS 

1 (2) Strike ‘‘Division C’’ and all that follows 

2 through the end. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 

By KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Deputy Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DESHAWN GIVENS, 

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-163

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

Magistrate Judge Jolson

MAJOR TUNNER, et al., 

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 29, 2018, this Court ordered Plaintiff to resubmit a summons and U.S. Marshal 

Form 285 (see Doc. 2) for each named Defendant within fourteen (14) days so that the United 

States Marshals Service could effect service of process by certified mail. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff, 

however, failed to do so and Defendants were never served. Consequently, in a July 16, 2018 

Order, the Court explained to Plaintiff that under Rule 4(m) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

“[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or 

on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that 

defendant[.]” (Doc. 6). The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to show good cause within fourteen days 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service of process. Plaintiff 

failed to respond. 

Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure 

to timely effect service of process under Rule 4(m) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Procedure on Objections

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific 
2

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting 

authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit 

this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 7, 2018 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Retention Bonus Letter - John H. Tran



 Exhibit 10.85 
 

 
 Delivered in Person 
 February 25, 2009 
 John Tran 
 Dear John:

 As you know, given the macro economic climate and resulting impact on company operations, many corporations have scaled back and even
eliminated 2008 bonus programs as was the decision by Anesiva’s Board of Directors. However, in recognition of the continued commitment of its people to the success of the company, the Board has adopted a retention bonus plan for 2009. Anesiva,
Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to offer you an initial bonus payment in the amount equal to Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000.00) to be earned and payable on March 1, 2009. Additional stay bonuses are planned for May and June under
similar terms subject to subsequent Board approval. 
 In the event that you voluntarily resign from employment with the Company before
May 1, 2009, you agree that you will repay to the Company this retention bonus amount paid to you pursuant to this letter. Any repayment under this paragraph must be repaid 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. 
 As a reminder, your employment with the Company continues to be “at will,” as described in your original Offer Letter. This retention bonus and letter does not change any other terms of your Offer Letter.

 We hope that you find the foregoing terms acceptable. Please indicate your agreement with these terms by signing and dating below.

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Michael L. Kranda
	 Michael L. Kranda
 President and Chief Executive
Officer



 I have read, accept and agree to, the terms of this agreement. 
  

					
	/s/ John H. Tran	 		 	2/25/09
	Name	 		 	Date

 HEADQUARTERS: 
 650 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 • PHONE (650) 624-9600 • FAX (650) 624-7540 
 WWW.ANESIVA.COM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

HEATHER SAYGER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-244 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

 This social security case is presently before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion 

to Remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. #10). The parties stipulate that this case should 

be remanded to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings, 

pursuant to sentence four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Upon remand, the Appeals Council will vacate all findings in the Administrative 

Law Judge’s decision, and the Commissioner will conduct further proceedings and 

develop the administrative record as necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is under a 

disability as defined by the Social Security Act. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The parties’ Joint Motion to Remand to the Commissioner 

(Doc. #10) is ACCEPTED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in Plaintiff’s 

favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58; 
2

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security 

Administration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g), for further consideration consistent with this Decision 

and Entry and the parties’ stipulation; and 

4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March 11, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      16,157,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,778,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,758,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,853,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,088,000
<PP&E>                                     191,746,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (67,576,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             356,258,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,216,000
<BONDS>                                    355,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (41,192,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               356,258,000
<SALES>                                      1,570,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           126,887,000
<CGS>                                       14,526,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,186,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            50,043,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,717,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,936,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                (3,557,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,379,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,379,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
| (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 results of operations of                  the Company                  as of December 31, 2004 and for the periods then ended. |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                         |                                                                                                                                                               |                                    |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                               |
|  Date:                December 16, 2005 |                                                                                                                                                          |                               |
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                               | /s/ Robert                C. Ogden |
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                    |
|                                         |                    Robert C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer and     Principal                  Financial and Accounting Officer |