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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

DAPHNE DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-253 

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

(Doc. #19). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees 

in the amount of $4,800.00, 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 Plaintiff’s attorney, and can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that the litigant 
2

owes the 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 Stipulation for an Award of Attorney’s Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #19) is accepted 

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

expenses in the total amount of $4,800.00; 

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. 

November 13, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          29,381                  29,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,381                  29,381
<PP&E>                                         161,632                 161,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,584                 128,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,047                 116,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,304,899               1,304,899
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,595                   2,595
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,186,257)             (1,186,257)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,047                 116,047
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,769                 430,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,190                   4,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (259,959)               (435,016)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        91                     147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (257,050)               (435,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (257,050)               (435,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)                   (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)                   (.17)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

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

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant 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 financialinformation; and 

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

Date: May 5, 2009 

 

 

21
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extacted from the Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,792,273
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,083,869
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             1,485,362
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 42,875,944
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      93,613,392
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        93,499,555
<LOANS>                                    271,194,429
<ALLOWANCE>                                    849,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             426,705,101
<DEPOSITS>                                 317,958,799
<SHORT-TERM>                                46,312,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          6,472,712
<LONG-TERM>                                 28,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,866
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,647,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             426,705,101
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,726,307
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,905,119
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            14,631,426
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,140,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,902,567
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,728,859
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   90,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             294,300
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,206,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,089,846
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,348,046
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,348,046
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.85
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,057,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               967,360
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  212,311
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,103
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              849,152
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           160,134
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        689,018
        

</TABLE>
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 24 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide 

that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons 

in each State who are citizens of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. DAVIDSON (for himself, Mr. BROOKS, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. BUDD, Mr. 

MOORE of Alabama, Mrs. HINSON, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. RICE

of South Carolina, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. NORMAN, Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, 

and Mr. HARRIS) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in 

each State who are citizens of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 24 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

3 for ratification: 

4 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

5 ‘‘Representatives shall be apportioned among the sev6 eral States according to their respective numbers, which 

7 shall be determined by counting the number of persons 

8 in each State who are citizens of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

V.

TOMAS PALMA,e/ai,

Defendants.

Case No: 2:18-CR-I28

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Government's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.

(ECF No. 28). The Court understands that the Motion is unopposed. For good cause shown, the

Motion is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12,2018

s/Algenon L. Marblev

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Final Study Report

Study Title: Analytical Certificate




page6of16 }


I page 9 0~’!6 I


I page 12of 16 !
page 13 of 16 I

I page 15 of 16 I
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 6 

Directing the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant 

at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, and the United States Capitol 

Police to prohibit President Donald John Trump from entering the 

United States Capitol at any time after the expiration of his term 

as President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2021 

Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, and the United States Capitol Police to prohibit 

President Donald John Trump from entering the United 

States Capitol at any time after the expiration of his 

term as President. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM EN4 TERING UNITED STATES CAPITOL. 

5 The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representa6 tives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 6 IH 

1 and the United States Capitol Police shall take such ac2 tions as may be necessary to prohibit President Donald 

3 John Trump from entering the United States Capitol at 

4 any time after the expiration of his term as President. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: March 06, 2020 

Mr. Neil F. Freund 

Freund, Freeze & Arnold 

1 S. Main Street 

Suite 1800 

Dayton, OH 45402 

Ms. Sarah Jeanette Gelsomino 

Friedman & Gilbert 

50 Public Square 

Suite 1900 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

Ms. Kimberly A. Rutowski 

Hardin, Lazarus, Lewis & Marks 

30 Garfield Place 

Suite 915 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

 Re: Case No. 20-3274, Sabrina Jordan v. John Howard, et al

Originating Case No. : 3:18-cv-00082 

Dear Counsel, 

 This appeal has been docketed as case number 20-3274 with the caption that is enclosed on a 

separate page. The appellate case number and caption must appear on all filings submitted to the 

Court. If the filing fee was not paid when the notice of appeal was filed, it must be paid to the 

district court immediately. 

 Before preparing any documents to be filed, counsel are strongly encouraged to read the Sixth 

Circuit Rules at www.ca6.uscourts.gov. If you have not established a PACER account and 

registered with this court as an ECF filer, you should do so immediately. Your password for 

district court filings will not work in the appellate ECF system. 

 At this stage of the appeal, the following forms should be downloaded from the web site and 

filed with the Clerk's office by March 20, 2020. Additionally, the transcript order must be 

Case: 3:18-cv-00082-TMR Doc #: 32 Filed: 03/09/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 1181 
completed by that date. For further information and instructions on ordering transcript 

electronically, please visit the court's website. 

 Appellant: 

Appearance of Counsel 

Civil Appeal Statement of Parties & Issues 

Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations 

Application for Admission to 6th Circuit Bar (if applicable) 

 

 Appellee: 

Appearance of Counsel 

Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations 

Application for Admission to 6th Circuit Bar (if applicable) 

 More specific instructions are printed on each form. If appellant's initial forms are not timely 

filed or necessary fees paid, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. If you have 

questions after reviewing the forms and the rules, please contact the Clerk's office for assistance. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 

s/Jennifer Earl 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7066 

Enclosure 

Case: 3:18-cv-00082-TMR Doc #: 32 Filed: 03/09/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 1182 
OFFICIAL COURT OF APPEALS CAPTION FOR 20-3274

 

 

SABRINA JORDAN, as the Administrator and o/b/o the Estate of Jamarco Dewayne McShann 

 Plaintiff - Appellant 

v. 

OFFICER JOHN A. HOWARD; OFFICER JERRY KNIGHT; OFFICER BRIAN O'NEAL; 

UNNAMED OFFICERS; OFFICER MICHAEL CORNELY 

 Defendants - Appellees 

Case: 3:18-cv-00082-TMR Doc #: 32 Filed: 03/09/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 1183
#### MIRIAM H. HUTCHINSON AND LEON BOMSTEIN AND CHARLES BURTON, PARTNERS TRADING AS MILFAN ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DAMIN CORP., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT, AND WASHINGTON SAVINGS BANK, A BANKING CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued November 14, 1977

Decided November 29, 1977.

*362Before Judges Michels, Pressler and Lora.

*Mr. Murray Greiman*argued the cause for appellant Miriam H. Hutchinson *(Mr. Solomon*Lubow, attorney; *Mr-. Michael F.*Reilly, on the brief).

*Mr. Michael F. Reilly*argued the cause for appellants Leon Bomstein and Charles Burton, partners trading as Mil-fan Associates'.

*Ms. Bernice B. Stein*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Rilcer, Danzig, Scherer & Debevoise,*attorneys; *Mr. Frank J. Miele,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment of the Chancery Division declaring that an access easement over a portion of property owned by plaintiff Miriam B. Hutchinson granted to defendant Washington Savings Bank’s predecessor in title was valid and enforceable and did not require subdivision approval by the Jersey City Planning Board. Judge Kentz held that the easement did not constitute a minor subdivision within the intendment of the Municipal Planning Act (1953) *(N. J. S. A.*40:55-1.1 *et seq.)*Therefore, compliance with the local subdivision ordinance was not required. We agree and affirm.

 The legislative design of the Municipal Planning Act (1953) was to confer upon the municipalities the power “to enact comprehensive regulatory standards which would facilitate sound and orderly future municipal growth along preconceived lines, in short a planned community growth.” *Lake Intervale Homes, Inc. v. Parsippany-Troy Hills,*28 *N. J.*423; 434-435 (1958). The basic motivating objective *363of the 1953 Act was “to prevent deleterious future development of vacant land.” *Beers v. Wayne Tp Bd. of Adj.,*75 *N. J. Super.*305, 313 (App. Div. 1962).

 Subdivision approval is not required until the ownership of a single tract of land is to be divided. *Gulf Oil Co. v. Montanaro,*94 *N. J. Super.*348, 353-354 (Ch. Div. 1967). The term “subdivision” is defined by the 1953 act to mean “the division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more lots, sites or other divisions of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development; * * The easement herein granted unrestricted use for ingress and egress of motor vehicles of a part of Hutchinson’s property. This limited interest was not a division of the ownership of the property. Consequently, it did not constitute a subdivision thereof within the Municipal Planning Act (1953).

Accordingly, the judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed.
#### STATE OF LOUISIANA, Appellant, v. Lester NEWTON, Appellee.

No. 21675.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 18, 1965.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1965.

Teddy W. Airhart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., F. Jean Pharis, Dist. Atty., Alexandria, La., Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, for appellant.

Camille F. Gravel, Jr., Alexandria, La., for appellee.

Before WHITAKER* Senior Judge, and RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

 The district judge, upon a full and able opinion,1 found that Negroes were systematically excluded from the Grand Jury which indicted Newton, and declared his conviction unconstitutional, void and of no effect. We are in full agreement with the opinion and decision of the district court and its judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. Reported in 224 F.Supp. 330. See also the following later decisions: Coleman v. State of Alabama, 1964, 377 U.S. 129, 84 S.Ct. 1152, 12 L.Ed.2d 190; Whitus v. Balkcom, 5 Cir. 1964, 333 F.2d 496; Cobb v. Balkcom, 5 Cir. 1964, 339 F. 2d 95.