alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2362

In re: D.C. DIAMOND CORPORATION , Debtor ,

----------------------------------- TOMISLAV MILIC , Creditor

- Appellant ,

v. KEVIN R. MCCARTHY, Chapter 7 Trustee , Trustee

- Appellee , and DEVELOPERS SURETY AND IDENMNITY COMPANY, Creditor; STEWART TITLE GUARANTY CO., Creditor, Transferee of Old Line Bank, Successor to The Washington Savings Bank, F SB , Creditors , and
D.C. DIAMOND CORPORATION , Debtor , and JUDY A. ROBBINS, 11 ,2 Trustee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 01076

- TSE

- IDD; 12

- 16730

- BFK )

Submitted : April 2 5 , 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before MOTZ , DUNCAN , and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tomislav Milic, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin R. McCarthy, MCCARTHY & WHITE, PLLC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Tomislav Milic appeals from the district court ’ s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for an expedited hearing on his objection to a sale that was previo usly approved by the bankruptcy court. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for t he reasons stated by the
courts below

. Milic v. McCarthy , Nos. 1:16

- cv
- 01076

- TSE

- IDD, 12

- 16730

- BFK ( E .D.
Va. filed Oct. 27, 2016; entered Oct. 28, 2016 )

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

STIGLEMAN ) CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00208

Plaintiff, } JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

v. } MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEWMAN
EVANS MOTORWORKS INC. }

Defendant.

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND
DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Before the Court is the Parties’ JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (“Joint
Motion”). Having reviewed the Joint Motion, the Parties’ proposed Settlement Agreement and
General Release (“Agreement”), and the Declaration of Joshua B. Fuchs, it appears to the Court
that the Agreement is fair and reasonable, and that it satisfies all of the criteria for this Court’s
approval under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court approves the Parties’ Agreement, and directs the Parties to effectuate the
settlement of this Action pursuant to its terms; and

2. This Action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. —~

Date: 41-19 bw t
Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            1167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      287
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1454
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               40
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1454
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9583
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7420
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (248)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7172
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.14
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 70 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 70 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 70 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 70 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 70 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 70 Filed 10/14/2003 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of General Electric CapitalServices, Inc. (the "registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "report"), we, Dennis D. Dammerman and James A. Parke, Chairman of theBoard and Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of theregistrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

     (1) The report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the registrant.

 

**
March 1, 2004 
 

 

 

 
/s/ Dennis D. Dammerman 
Dennis D. Dammerman 
Chairman of the Board 
 

 

 

 
/s/ James A. Parke 
James A. Parke 
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer

**
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

9/30/19

 Southern District of Ohio

Laura Ort

3:18-CV-286

Commissioner of Social Security

✔ Judgment in fvor of Plaintiff and against Defendant; Case remanded to the Social Security Administration

under sentnece four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration

✔ Sharon L. Ovington

Decision and Entry
#### Homer B. Dunning v. Charles H. Calkins.

*Error*— Tax *wm'rant for drain taxes.*

A judgment cannot be reversed, if right, whether the reasons on which it is placed are satisfactory or not; and counsel can rely on all the objections raised below.

*557A warrant for tlie collection of drain taxes is bad if the taxes are not so spread upon tbe assessment roll as to identify the drain for which each is levied, in order that each fund may be kept separate, and specific drain orders be paid from the proper fund.

Error to Shiawassee. (Newton, J.)

Oct. 3.

Oct. 24

TboyeR. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Hugh McCurdy*for appellant.

A tax collector need not loot behind his process for authority to issue the same; *Foster v. Wiley*27 Mich. 244; *Savacool v. Boughton*5 Wend. 170; *Parker v. WaT/rod*16 Wend. 614; *Fulton v. Heaton*1 Barb. 652; *Cornell v. Barnes 1*Hill 35.

*A. B. McBride*for appellee.

CaMpbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for the wrongful seizure and conversion of personal property. Defendant undertook to justify under a tax warrant upon which plaintiff was charged vpth a drain assessment. When this warrant was presented it was objected to on several plainly expressed grounds, and "the court below ruled it out, on the ground that the statute gave no authority to collect the tax from the personal property. Defendant brought error.

The plaintiff’s counsel in this Court relied on all the objections raised below, as he had a right to do, as the judgment cannot be reversed if the decision was right, whether based on satisfactory reasons or not.

It appears from the roll that instead of placing the taxes on the roll in such a way as to identify the drain for which they were laid, by name or otherwise, so as to have each fund kept separate in the township treasurer’s hands, and so as also to allow payment by drainage orders, as contemplated by sections 15, 21 and 22, the roll required the money for all drains in the township to be paid over in a gross sum to the town treasurer, and, as we must assume from the record, contained none of the substantial elements of a proper charging under the statutes. This being so, it was unimportant whether a regular tax could or could not be col*558lected against personalty,' and we need not consider that question, which comes later in order than the objection .already discussed. The warrant being bad on its face, was no defense.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
[Universal Health Realty Income Trust letterhead]

                                 January 7, 1999


Mr. Alan B. Miller
President
UHS of Delaware, Inc.
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA  19406

Dear Alan:

         The Board of Trustees of Universal Health Realty Income Trust at their
December 1, 1998, meeting authorized the renewal of the current Advisory
Agreement between the Trust and UHS of Delaware, Inc. ("Agreement") upon the
same terms and conditions.

         This letter constitutes the Trust's offer to renew the Agreement until
December 31, 1999, upon the same terms and conditions. Please acknowledge UHS of
Delaware, Inc.'s acceptance of this offer by signing in the space provided below
and returning one copy of this letter to me.

                                Sincerely yours,


                                /s/ Kirk E. Gorman
                                 Kirk E. Gorman
                                 President and Secretary

cc:  Warren J. Nimetz, Esquire
       Charles Boyle

Agreed to and Accepted:

UHS OF DELAWARE, INC.



By: /s/ Alan B. Miller
      Alan B. Miller, President
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**Certification      of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this                certification is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies                with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Exchange                Act; and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |                                                                            |                                   |
|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                       |                                                                            |
|                                  |                                                                       |                              |
| Dated: February              11, 2008 | By:                                                                   | /s/              Alberto R. Santa Ines |
|                                       | Alberto              R. Santa Ines                                              |
|                                       | Chief              Financial Officer and Vice President of              Finance |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 102 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 102

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Veterans 
         Affairs relating to ``Reproductive Health Services''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2022

 Mr. Cloud (for himself, Mr. Bost, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Ellzey, Mr. Lamborn, 
Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Roy, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Mast, Mr. Buck, Mrs. Miller of 
Illinois, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Babin, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
    Loudermilk, Mr. Mann, Mr. LaTurner, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. 
   Rutherford, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Massie, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. 
Bergman, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Harris, Mr. Jackson, 
   Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Ms. Conway, Mr. Weber of 
 Texas, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Mooney, 
    Mr. Biggs, Mr. Hern, Mr. Banks, Mrs. Boebert, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. 
Fulcher, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Brady, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, 
 Mr. Steube, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
 Gooden of Texas, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Mr. Johnson 
of Louisiana, Mr. Carl, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Cline, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
   Williams of Texas, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Feenstra) submitted the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Veterans 
         Affairs relating to ``Reproductive Health Services''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Veterans Affairs relating to 
``Reproductive Health Services'' (87 Fed. Reg. 55287; published 
September 9, 2022), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2


 


March 23,
2009


 


Dear Peter
Blackmore:


 


On March 23,
2009, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of UTStarcom, Inc.
(the “Company”) accepted your offer to voluntarily reduce your base
salary.  Effective as of the date hereof,
the Company will reduce your current base salary by twenty percent (20%) for a
one year period expiring March 23, 2010 (the “Salary Reduction”).


 


Notwithstanding
this Salary Reduction, your base salary, as in effect immediately prior to the
Salary Reduction (the “Pre-Reduction Rate”), shall be deemed and continue to be
your base salary for all other purposes under any employment agreement between
you and the Company and under the Company’s benefit and personnel plans,
programs and policies, including without limitation, bonuses, equity awards,
severance payments, change in control payments and any other benefits, to the
maximum extent permitted by law.  For
example, for the avoidance of doubt, any severance benefits payable to you in
the future pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Change of
Control/Involuntary Termination Severance Agreement, dated January 30,
2008 by and between the Company and you, as amended (the “Severance Agreement”),
that certain Offer Letter, dated October 25, 2007, as amended (“Offer
Letter”) and/or any other Company plan or program, shall be calculated without
regard to this Salary Reduction, and any bonus payable to you for 2009 or 2010
shall be calculated without regard to this Salary Reduction.  Commencing on March 24, 2010, your base
salary shall revert to the Pre-Reduction Rate, subject, however, to any merit
increases, which merit increases shall be based upon the Pre-Reduction Rate.


 


You hereby
acknowledge that the Salary Reduction is a voluntary decision by you and shall
not constitute “Good Reason” under the Severance Agreement, Offer Letter, any
other agreement between you and the Company or any other Company plan or
program.  You hereby waive any rights to
receive severance benefits pursuant to the Severance Agreement, Offer Letter,
or otherwise as a result of the Salary Reduction.


 


Except as
specifically set forth in this letter, the Severance Agreement, Offer Letter,
and any other agreement between you and the Company remain in full force and
effect without modification.


 


Please
acknowledge receipt of this letter agreement and your acceptance of the terms
hereof by signing below and returning the signed copy to the Human Resources
Department.


 




	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Susan Marsch

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  SVP, General
  Counsel, Secretary and Chief Ethics

  Officer

  






 

















 


ACKNOWLEDGED
AND AGREED TO:


 


 




	
  Signature:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Peter
  Blackmore

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name printed:

  	
   

  	
  Peter
  Blackmore

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date: 

  	
  March 23, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  information   extracted  from  the  Company's
Consolidated  Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1998 and Consolidated  Statement
of Operations for the Three Months Ended  September 30, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 2,252
<SECURITIES>                                             385
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                             379
<INVENTORY>                                            8,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      17,029
<PP&E>                                                61,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                         4,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        78,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 27,209
<BONDS>                                               45,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                 116
<OTHER-SE>                                            (4,409)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          78,456
<SALES>                                                8,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       8,711
<CGS>                                                 10,423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         10,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       4,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (4,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (4,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (3,693)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.36)
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0543. OSHA BERRY v. DONNIE BERRY. 

In this divorce case, Osha Berry has filed a direct appeal from the trial court’s

order finding him in contempt of its temporary order and its prior contempt order,

terminating his weekday evening visitation, and ordering him incarcerated until he

purges the contempt. We lack jurisdiction. 

Generally, appeals from orders entered in domestic relations cases, including

orders holding personsin contempt, must be appealed by application for discretionary

review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). However, a direct appeal is proper under OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (a) (11) from all judgments or orders “in child custody cases” that award,

refuse to change, or modify child custody or visitation, or orders that hold or decline

to hold persons in contempt of child custody orders. But OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11)

allows a “direct appeal from the types of orders specified in that statute that are

entered in ‘custody cases’”; “not from orders relating to child custody issues that are

entered in ‘divorce cases.’” Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 45-46 (799 SE2d 160)

(2017); see Hoover v. Hoover, 295 Ga. 132, 134 (1) (757 SE2d 838) (2014) (holding

that when child custody issues are ancillary to a divorce action, the determination of

child custody does not transform the case into a “child custody case”); Todd v. Todd,

287 Ga. 250, 251 (1) (703 SE2d 597) (2010) (“All other issues in a divorce action,

including child custody, are merely ancillary to [the] primary issue [of whether the

marriage should be dissolved].”); Ford v. Ford, __ Ga. App. __ (Case No.

A18A1156, decided August 30, 2018) (reaffirming the holdings ofHoover and Todd).

This case is part of the divorce proceeding between the parties and, as such,

Osha Berry was required to file an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to

October 24, 2018
OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). His failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/24/2018