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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD BARROW ) CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00674

)

Plaintiff ) JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

)

-vs- ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

) KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

C/O TOBY HOLTON, et al. )

)

Defendants )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Now comes Jacqueline C. Greene, Attorney at Law, and hereby enters her appearance as 

counsel of record on behalf of the Plaintiff, Richard Barrow, in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully submitted,

FRIEDMAN & GILBERT

/s/ Jacqueline C. Greene

JACQUELINE C. GREENE (0092733)

55 Public Square, Suite 1055

Cleveland, OH 44113-1901

Telephone: (216) 241-1430

Facsimile: (216) 621-0427

E-Mail: jgreene@f-glaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 2:18-cv-00674-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/17/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 163
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 17, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent to all registered parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing 

system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Jacqueline C. Greene

JACQUELINE C. GREENE

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 2:18-cv-00674-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/17/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 163
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4445 

To amend Public Law 95–232 to repeal a restriction on treating as Indian 

country certain lands held in trust for Indian pueblos in New Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2010 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself, Mr. LUJA ́N, and Mr. TEAGUE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 95–232 to repeal a restriction on 

treating as Indian country certain lands held in trust 

for Indian pueblos in New Mexico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Pueblo Cultural 

5 Center Clarification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON TREATING AS INDIAN 

7 COUNTRY CERTAIN LANDS HELD IN TRUST 

8 FOR INDIAN PUEBLOS IN NEW MEXICO. 

9 Public Law 95–232 is amended in the first section 

10 in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘However, such property 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4445 IH

1 shall not be ‘Indian country’ as defined in section 1151 

2 of title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos.
333-01569, 333-13943, 333-20005, 333-24615, 333-64203, 333-65211, 333-67511 and
333-87905) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-02329, 333-13481, 333-65223, 333-65193,
333-65221 and 333-85549) of our report dated February 17, 2000, on our audits of
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of New
Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and July 31,
1998 and for the year ended December 31, 1999, the five months ended December
31, 1998 and for each of the two years in the period ended July 31, 1998, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                      /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 21, 2000
#### Moore *v.*Childers.

4-2885

Opinion delivered November 28, 1932.

*565
      *W. A. Cunningham, E. II. Tharp, W. A. Jackson*and *O. C. Blackford,*for appellant.

*W. P. Smith, Chas. D. Frierson*and *Charles Frier-son, Jr.,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). The court did not err in refusing to make the *nunc pro tunc,*order requested. Upon a hearing it was disclosed that appellant’s attorneys, when the demurrer was sustained, did not ask leave to amend, and the court noted on its docket that appellant elected to stand on his complaint and declined to amend, and dismissed it. The deputy clerk stated that the court read the docket entry, and none of appellant’s attorneys objected to it, and that the motion to amend was not filed until the next day, September 1, which was more than 10 days after the expiration of the time allowed by law in which to file the contest.

This court has held that, in contested election cases for nomination to any particular office, it is necessary to allege the number of candidates for the particular *566office and the vote received hv each, in order to disclose whether the contestant received a plurality of all the. legal votes cast, upon the proper deduction made for illegal votes. In *Hill*v. *Williams,*165 Ark. 421, 264 S. W. 964, the court, in holding a demurrer to the complaint properly sustained, said: ‘ ‘ There should have been an allegation in the complaint showing the number of votes received by each candidate, so that it would appear,- after deducting the alleged fraudulent votes from the number accredited to appellee, that appellant would then have more votes than either one of his opponents.

“The demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained, as the general allegations therein of irregularities and fraud were mere conclusions, and the specific allegation failed to show that appellant received a plurality of all the legal votes cast for sheriff and collector at said election. ’ ’

The complaint could not have been amended when the motion to remedy the defect was made on the 1st of September, since the amendment was not offered within 10 days after the certification of the nomination complained of, the provision of the statute requiring the contest to be filed within 10 days thereafter being mandatory and jurisdictional, and the failure to institute the contest properly within this time was fatal to the contestant. *Hill*v. *Williams, supra; Gower*v. *Johnson,*173 Ark. 120, 292 S. W. 382; *Bland*v. *Benton,*171 Ark. 805, 286 S. W. 976; and *Storey*v. *Looney,*165 Ark. 455, 265 S. W. 51.

It is only amendments, in "such contested election cases, to make the complaint and allegations thereof more definite and certain that may be allowed after the 10-day period for bringing the contest has expired, and such amendments alleging new and additional grounds of contest are not permissible. *Bland*v. *Benton, supra; Wilson*v. *Cardwell, ante*p. 261.

We find no prejudicial error in the record, and t,b« judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Exhibit
32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 USC. § 1350, As Adopted
Pursuant to

§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



In connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) as amended by
this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 31, 2014 (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Ryan, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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/ Christopher J. Ryan                          | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 
|Christopher J. Ryan                              | 
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Secretary | 



August 13, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF, et 

al., 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-569

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. 

Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 18) AND

TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with the Court and, on September 18, 

2019, filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed

based upon Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, and 

corresponding failure to prosecute. (Doc. 18). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED;

Case: 1:18-cv-00569-TSB-SKB Doc #: 20 Filed: 04/17/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 68
2

2. This case is DISMISSED based upon Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court

apprised of his current address, and corresponding failure to prosecute;

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is

TERMINATED from the Court’s docket; and

4. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of

this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is denied

leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

4/17/2020 s/Timothy S. Black

Case: 1:18-cv-00569-TSB-SKB Doc #: 20 Filed: 04/17/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 69
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance  sheets  and  consolidated  statements  of  income  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,723,878
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      141,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        215,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                          22,712,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,052,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,146,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,052,621
<SALES>                                             94,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,203,669
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,877,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   161,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 512,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    326,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                326,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       326,567
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         2.26
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James B. Frakes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. Based on my knowledge, the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and





2. The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aethlon Medical, Inc.








Dated: November 15, 2010
/s/ JAMES B. FRAKESJames B. FrakesChief Financial OfficerAethlon Medical, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRlCT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

SECURlTIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Case No. 1:01-cv- 116

(Judge Sandra S. Beckwith)

Plaintiff

EIGHTH MOTION TO

APPROVE PAYMENT OF

FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT

OF EXPENSES TO RECEIVER

STEPHEN G. DONAHUE, and

DONAHUE SECURlTIES, INC.

Defendants.

Comes now Michael R. Barrett as receiver for Stephen G. Donahue and formerly also for

G. Donahue & Company, Inc. pursuant to order entered March 7, 2001 (the "Receiver ) and

moves the Court for entry of an order approving payment of fees for legal services performed by

the Receiver during the period from December 8, 2003 through November 7 2005 in the amount

of $8 664.00 and for reimbursement of expenses incurred during the same period in the amount

of $249. 18 for a total of $8 913. 18 and that the same be paid out of funds now in the hands of the

Receiver pursuant to the proposed order submitted herewith on the grounds set forth in the

memorandum attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted

Isl Richard Boydston

Richard Boydston (22360)

Attorney for Michael R. Barrett, Receiver

Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC

255 East Fifth Street #2800

Cincinnati, OH 45202-4728

phone: 513.455.7663

fax: 513.762.7963

email: rb2(fYgdm.com

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 114 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRlCT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

SECURlTIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Case No. 1:01-cv- 116

(Judge Sandra S. Beckwith)

Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF EIGHTH MOTION TO

APPROVE PAYMENT OF FEES

AND REIMBURSEMENT OF

EXPENSES TO RECEIVER

STEPHEN G. DONAHUE, and

DONAHUE SECURlTIES, INC.

Defendants.

Michael R. Barrett (the "Receiver) was appointed receiver for S.G. Donahue &

Company, Inc. ("SGD & Co. ) and Stephen G. Donahue pursuant to order entered March 7

2001 in this action.

The Receiver has incurred fees in the amount of $8 664.00 and expenses in the amount of

$249.18 for a total of$8 913. 18 during the period December 8 2003 through November 7 2005.

A standard form invoice for those fees and expenses is attached hereto.

The Receiver respectfully represents said fees and expenses are reasonable and necessary

expenses of the receivership and should be approved and promptly paid out of funds collected by

Receiver.

Respectfully submitted

Isl Richard Boydston

Richard Boydston (22360)

Attorney for Michael R. Barrett, Receiver

Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC

255 East Fifth Street #2800

Cincinnati OH 45202-4728

phone: 513.455.7663

fax: 513. 762.7963

email: rb2(fYgdm. com

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 114 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that copies of the foregoing motion and memorandum along with the proposed

order granting said motion were served electronically on December 6 2005 pursuant to the

CMIECF procedures established by the Court.

sl Richard Boydston

641455 I

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 114 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

WCR, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WESTERN CANADA PLATE 

EXCHANGE LTD.,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-00278

District Judge Michael J. Newman

Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a Discovery Conference on June 3, 2022. 

Counsel orally requested to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. For 

good cause shown, the request is GRANTED, and this matter shall proceed as follows: 

Telephone Status Conference August 23, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. 

Discovery Deadline August 29, 2022

Dispositive Motion Deadline September 15, 2022

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Caroline H. Gentry

Caroline H. Gentry

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:18-cv-00278-MJN-CHG Doc #: 76 Filed: 06/06/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1006
STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Environmental Division Unit Docket No. 150-12-15 Vtec

Martin & Skeer NOV DECISION AND JUDGMENT ORDER 

This appeal concerns a notice of alleged zoning violation (“NOV”) served upon property 

owner William Martin. The NOV alleges that the house on Mr. Martin’s property, located at 

182 Upper Main Street in Morristown, Vermont, is dilapidated, abandoned and in violation of 

Section 440 of the Town of Morristown Zoning Bylaws. 

An appeal of that NOV was taken by or on behalf of Mr. Martin to the Town of 

Morristown/Morrisville Development Review Board (“DRB”). The DRB, by its Notice of Decision 

dated November 19, 2015, upheld the NOV as a proper determination of a zoning violation. 

Mr. Martin did not appeal the DRB Decision to uphold the NOV. However, a business 

partner of Mr. Martin—Ken Skeer—filed an appeal in his own name. When the Court 

conducted its initial conference on the appeal, Mr. Skeer confirmed that he did not own any 

titled interest in the property and that Mr. Martin was the sole legal holder of title to the 

property. This fact was confirmed when the Town of Morristown Zoning Administrator—Todd 

Thomas—submitted a copy of the “Vermont Special Limited Warranty Deed” from the U.S. 

Bank National Association, as Grantor, to William T. Martin of Plymouth, Massachusetts, as the 

sole Grantee. 

This matter is complicated by Mr. Skeer’s representations that he is Mr. Martin’s 

business partner in efforts to renovate the dilapidated building on the property and that Mr. 

Skeer has invested considerable time and resources into those efforts, without receiving 

assistance or an interest in the property from Mr. Martin. 

Only parties who have standing as an “interested person,” as statutorily defined, are 

permitted to appeal to this Court from municipal land use determinations that they wish to 

contest. 24 V.S.A § 4471(a). The term “interested person” is defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b). 

While that definition uses the term “person owning title to property,” there is no provision that 

would encompass an untitled equitable interest, such as Mr. Skeer may have in the subject 

property. 

For these reasons, we must conclude that Mr. Skeer has no standing to prosecute this 

appeal. Since he is the only individual who has appeared in this matter, we are compelled to 

DISMISS the pending appeal. 

As a consequence of this dismissal, the NOV is upheld and has become final. 
In re Martin & Skeer NOV, No. 150-12-15 Vtec (Decision & Judgment Order)(05-31-2016) Page 2. 

2 

Electronically signed on May 31, 2016 at Bennington, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

________________________________ 

Thomas S. Durkin, Judge 

Environmental Division
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael J. Holmes, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report of Odyssey Marine Exploration, 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, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, 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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



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



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small
business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: August 1, 2005   
|                       
|/s/ Michael J. Holmes  
|Michael J. Holmes      
|Chief Financial Officer