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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TIZAZU F. AREGA,

Petitioner, 

Case No.: 2:18-cv-942

v. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Deavers

WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

On October 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (ECF No. 1), be denied. 

(ECF No. 2.) Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the R&R, and of the 

consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. The R&R (ECF No. 2) is 

therefore, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) 

is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), the Court must also assess whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the 

United States District Courts states that “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of

appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” However, Petitioner has 

waived the right to file an appeal by failing to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's 

recommendations. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 

F. 2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court therefore DECLINES to issue a certificate of

appealability.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

JANET FLAUGHER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-287 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

(by full consent of the parties) 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

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

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

(Doc. #13). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees 

in the amount of $4,500.00, and no costs, in full satisfaction and settlement of any and 

all claims Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the above case. Prior to Plaintiff 

filing an EAJA petition, the parties jointly reached a resolution to settle EAJA fees in 

this case. Their stipulation represents a compromise on disputed positions and is not 

intended to set precedent for, or a representation of, any specific hourly rate or total 

number of hours. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

signed by Plaintiff and counsel. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

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

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #13) is accepted 

and Defendant shall pay Plaintiff=s attorney fees, costs, and 

expenses in the total amount of $4,500.00; 

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: December 13, 2019 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit
4.9 

    BENEFICIAL
OWNER ELECTION FORM

     

    INSTRUCTIONS

     

    The
undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed materials
referred to therein relating to the offering of 8% redeemable subordinated
debentures due 2019 (the "Debentures") of German American Bancorp, Inc.
("GABC").

     

     This
will instruct you whether to exercise Rights to purchase Debentures distributed
with respect to the shares of Common Stock held by you for the account of the
undersigned, pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Prospectus. 

     

    Box
1.    ̈
Please DO NOT EXERCISE RIGHTS.

     

    Box
2.    ̈
Please EXERCISE RIGHTS for Debentures as set forth below.

     

    
      
        
          
            	 
      	
                    Principal Amount of Debentures
      

                    Subscribed
      For *

                  	 
      	
                     

                    Payment
      **

                  
	
                    Basic
      Subscription Privilege with Rounding-Up Privilege

                  	
                    _________________  x

                  	 
      	
                    $_____________(Line
      1)

                  
	
                    Over-Subscription
      Privilege

                  	
                    _________________  x

                  	 
      	
                    $_____________
      (Line 2)

                  
	
                    Total
      Payment Required

                  	 
      	 
      	
                    $_____________
      (Sum of Lines 1 and
2)

                  


          

        

      

    

     

    * Must be
in denominations of $10,000 or integral multiples thereof

     

    **100% of
principal amount

     

    Box
3.    ̈
Payment in the following amount is enclosed: $____________

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      	 
      	 
      	 	 
	 
      	
                              Signature(s)

                            	 
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
	
                              Date:

                            	 
      	
                              Please
      type or print name(s) below:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MAGNACROSS LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OKI DATA AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1840

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas in No. 3:20-cv-01959-M, Chief 

Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The above-captioned appeal is dismissed under Fed. 

R. App. P. 42(b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

June 7, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Acting Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 7, 2023

Case: 22-1840 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2023
----

----

Neffs Bancorp, Inc. 10-K

|   | ● | the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ● | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations. |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ John J. Remaley                      |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| John J. Remaley, Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         394,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               458,176
<PP&E>                                         641,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                 329,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 810,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,124,459
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       132,564
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,265,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   810,314
<SALES>                                         20,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,500
<CGS>                                            5,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,456,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,492,551
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,492,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,492,551
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
Executive privilege may properly be asserted with respect to the entire set of White House Counsel’s

Office documents currently being withheld from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, pending a final Presidential decision on the matter. This would be a protective assertion of executive privilege designed to ensure the President’s abilityto make a final decision, after consultation with the Attorney General, as to which specific documents are deserving of a conclusive claim of executive privilege. May 8, 1996 THE PRESIDENT THE W HITE HOUSE
My Dear M r. President: You have requested my legal advice as to whether executive privilege may properly be asserted in response to a subpoena issued to the Counsel to the President by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives. The subpoena covers a large volume of confidential White House Counsel’sOffice documents. The Counsel to the President notified the Chairman of the Committee today that he was invoking the procedures of the standing directive governing consideration of whether to assert executive privilege, President Reagan’s memorandum of November 4, 1982, and that he specifically requested, pursuant to paragraph 5 of that directive, that the Committee hold its subpoena in abeyance pending a final Presidential decision on the matter. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Re: Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests for Information at 2 (Nov. 4, 1982). This request was necessitated by the deadline imposed by the Chairman, the volume of documentsthat must be specifically and individually reviewed for possible assertion of privilege and the need under the directive to consult with the Attorney General, on the basis of that review, before presenting the matter to the President for a final determination. The Chairman rejected the request and indicated that he intends to proceed with a Committee vote on the contempt citation tomorrow. Based on these circumstances, it is my legal judgment that executive privilege may properly be asserted with respect to the entire set of White House Counsel’s Office documents currently being withheld from the Committee, pending a finalPresidential decision on the matter. This would be a protective assertion of executive privilege designed to ensure your ability to make a final decision, after consultation with the Attorney General, as to which specific documents are deserving of a conclusive claim of executive privilege.

Sincerely,

JANET RENO Attorney General 

### Protective Assertion of Executive Privilege Regarding White

House Counsel’s Office Documents

1
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4671-4672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01874]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meetings

DATE AND TIME: Monday, February 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.; and Tuesday, 
February 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

STATUS: Monday, February 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.--Closed; Tuesday, 
February 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.--Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Monday, February 7, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. (Closed)

    1. Strategic Issues.
    2. Financial and Operational Matters.
    3. Administrative Items.

Tuesday, February 8, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. (Open)

    1. Remarks of the Chairman of the Board of Governors.
    2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO.
    3. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings.
    4. Committee Reports.
    5. Quarterly Financial Report.
    6. Quarterly Service Performance Report.
    7. Approval of Tentative Agendas for May Meetings.
    A public comment period will begin immediately following the 
adjournment of the open session on February 8, 2022. During the public 
comment period, which shall not exceed 60 minutes, members of the 
public may comment on

[[Page 4672]]

any item or subject listed on the agenda for the open session above. 
Additionally, the public will be given the option to join the public 
comment session and participate via teleconference. Registration of 
speakers at the public comment period is required. Should you wish to 
participate via teleconference, you will be required to give your first 
and last name, a valid email address to send an invite and a phone 
number to reach you should a technical issue arise. Speakers may 
register online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BOG-02-08-2022. No 
more than three minutes shall be allotted to each speaker. The time 
allotted to each speaker will be determined after registration closes. 
Registration for the public comment period, either in person or via 
teleconference, will end on February 6 at 5 p.m. ET. Participation in 
the public comment period is governed by 39 CFR 232.1(n).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael J. Elston, Secretary of 
the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01874 Filed 1-26-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<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>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-20-1997
<CASH>                                       4,736,479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,108,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,401,327
<PP&E>                                     278,926,118
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,808,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             279,845,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,321,804
<BONDS>                                    167,882,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  92,375,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               279,845,349
<SALES>                                     20,853,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,072,524
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,839,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,704,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,200,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,565,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,635,116
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,635,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
#### Carl W. WIDMER *v.*Roy G. WOOD and Helen L. Wood

5-4548

427 S. W. 2d 537

Opinion delivered May 13, 1968

*Carl W. Widmer,*pro se.

*892
      *Hardin, Barton, Hardin & Jesson,*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Oarl W. Widmer appeals from a decree sustaining a plea of res judicata to his action for specific performance. His grounds for reversal are that the trial court erred in not holding all his requested admissions of fact as being admitted, in not granting his motion for summary judgment, and in sustaining the plea of res judicata. 'Since a plea of res judicata is in actuality a plea of confession and avoidance, we do not reach the first two points because we hold that the trial court was correct in entering a summary judgment upon the plea of res judicata.

Appellant’s complaint is based upon a sales agreement with appellees Roy G. Wood and Helen L. Wood, under date of October 19, 1961, for the sale of lands located in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma. After appellant had filed requests for admissions of fact and motions for summary judgment, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment specifically pleading as a defense a judgment entered in the Sebastian Circuit Court on May 12, 1967, between the same parties. Attached to appel-lees’ motion for summary judgment was the circuit court judgment which contained detailed findings of fact and a detailed statement of the issues between the parties. The circuit court judgment was the result of a suit brought by Roy G. Wood against Carl W. Widmer to recover the abstract to the real estate involved. It showed that as a defense to the recovery of the abstract Carl W. Widmer pleaded the same breach of the sales agreement upon which he here relies. The trial court there specifically found the issues relative to the sales agreement in favor of Roy G. Wood. The motion for summary judgment was filed on July 18, 1967, and the record shows no response by appellant Widmer to this motion. The order granting the summary judgment on the plea of res judicata was entered September 1,1967, more than 30 days after the filing of the motion for summary judgment.

*893“In *Mid-South Ins. Co.*v. lsi *Nat. Bk., Ft. Smith,*241 Ark. 935, 410 S. W. 2d 873 (1967), we held that the motion for summary judgment requires the opposition to remove the shielding cloak of formal allegations and to demonstrate a genuine issue as to a material fact. Under the circumstances we think the plea of res judi-cata was well taken and that the trial court was correct in awarding the summary judgment. Nor can we find anything in *Southern Farmers Ass’n*v. *Wyatt,*234 Ark. 649, 353 S. W. 2d 531 (1962), that would require us to arrive at a different conclusion.

Affirmed.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                           |                                         |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                                                                                                           | /s/              David F. Hakala   |
|   | David                F. HakalaActing                Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Principal Financial                and                Accounting Officer |

----
Opinion issued September 22 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 16

- 00626

- CV

——————————— IN RE CASH MEDICAL C LINIC OF CENTER POIN TE, LLC, LUIS GONZALEZ, MARY MCCOY , AND ALBERTA EDINBU RG

PROPERTIES , INC., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial
court’s order denying their motion to transfer venue. * The petition is denied

.

* The underlying case is Patriot Bank v. Cash Medical Clinic of Center Pointe, LLC, Luis Gonzales, Ma ry J. McCoy, Alberta Edinburg Properties
, Inc., and Martin S. Frankel , cause number 2014

- 38580, pending in the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Mike D. Miller presiding.2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd

.