alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,612
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                   574
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21
<PP&E>                                         124,491
<DEPRECIATION>                                 40,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 91,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,234
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     89,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   91,248
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,490
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (215)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,941
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:01-cv-00111-HJW Document 124-4 Filed 04/15/2004 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Stephen Pelletier, Chief Executive Officer and President of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                          |  |                                       |  | 
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: November 13, 2009 |  |                          |  |                                       |  | 
|                         |  |                         
|                         |  | /s/    Stephen
Pelletier |  |                                      
|                         |  | Name:                    |  | Stephen Pelletier                     |  | 
|                         |  | Title:                   |  | Chief Executive Officer and President |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(a) In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of USF
Corporation for the quarter ended October 2, 2004, I, Thomas E. Bergmann,
Interim Chief Executive Officer of USF Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: (1) such Quarterly Report on Form l0-Q for the quarter ended
October 2, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended October 2, 2004, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of USF Corporation. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to USF Corporation and will be retained by USF Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. /s/ Thomas E. BergmannThomas E. BergmannPrincipal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer Date: November 8, 2004 27
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 50 Filed 09/23/2003 Page 9 of 9
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Darla M. Buckland,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:18cv494

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 

by the Magistrate Judge on August 12, 2019 (Doc. 16). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections 

to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 

F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R (Doc. 16) have 

been filed and, on August 27, 2019, the R&R mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the 

Clerk’s Office as undeliverable. However, proper notice would have been provided to 

Plaintiff had she kept the Court apprised of her current address. By failing to keep the 

Court informed of her current address, Plaintiff demonstrates a lack of prosecution of her

action. See, e.g., Theede v. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 1999) 

(holding that failure to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation because 

of party's failure to bring to the court's attention a change in address constitutes failure 

to object in a timely manner, and holding that because the report was mailed to the last 

known address, it was properly served and party waived right to appellate review). See 
2

also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that a pro se litigant has 

an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution of his cause of action); Barber v. 

Runyon, No. 93–6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (holding that a pro 

se litigant has a duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in his address).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 16) of the Magistrate Judge is 

hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the 

decision by the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s Michael R. Barrett_________

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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  SpatiaLight,   Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
A.  Olins,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Financial  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

     (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/ROBERT A. OLINS
                                                    Robert A. Olins
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Principal Financial Officer
May 15, 2003


<PAGE>
#### Auto-Owners Insurance Company v Churchman,

No. 88923.

Reported below: 184 Mich App 699.

*Leave to Appeal Granted September 10, 1991:*

To be argued and submitted with *Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Piccard,*No. 89487, and *Group Ins Co of Michigan v Czopek,*No. 90390.
TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

NORWOOD MEMORIAL AIRPORT 

MEMO 

Memo to File 

Russ Maguire 

1-8-2013 Phone Conversation with Mary Walsh, 

Director, FAA Airports Division 

TODAY' S DATE: January 8, 2013 

According to FAA's Mary Walsh, the purpose of her phone call was to warn me and the 

Norwood Airport Commission about the actions and "bizarre behavior" of Boston 

Executive Helicopter's (BEH) President, Chris Donovan. Apparently, Mr. Donovan had 

recently been in communications with FAA regarding an FAA e-mail, dated January 2, 

2013, and authored by Barry Hammer, which set down FAA's recommendations (and 

caution) regarding a proposed sub-lease term to BEH. 

In all of her years at FAA, Ms. Walsh said that she had "never seen anything like this." 

She characterized Mr. Donovan in the following manner: 

• "bizzare behavior" 

• "not normal behavior" 

• "very paranoid" 

"bordered on intimidation" 

Apparently, Mr. Donovan-along with his accountant, Patrick O'Malley--were berating 

Ms. Walsh and Mr. Hammer with a string of phone calls and e-mails (25 e-mails, over 

the course of an estimated 12-hour period), charging FAA with incompetence. Ms. Walsh 

said that she felt compelled to contact FAA's Security Division regarding this. 

According to Ms. Walsh, Mr. Donovan also stated to her that both I and the 

Norwood Airport Commission "had it out for him (Donovan)." As a result, Ms. 

Walsh said: "I would have concerns about you and the Airport Commission given 

what he (Donovan) said." 

In an effort to move the process in a productive direction, Ms. Walsh did say that FAA 

would be open to a meeting with both the Airport Commission and BEH.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FEB 11 Z015 

Mr. Ricardo Lavall Hollerbach 

Embraer 

Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170 - PC 179 

12227-901 Sao Jose dos Campos, SP 

BRAZIL 

Dear Mr. Hollerbach: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We are in receipt of your letter dated February 6, 2015, in which you requested a partial 

exemption from Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.809(a) at amendment 

25-116, for the flight crew exits and the over wing passenger exits on the ERJ 190-300 and 

ERJ 190-400 airplanes. Your petition was posted to the Department of Transportation's 

Federal Docket Management System (Docket No. FAA-2015-0298) on February 9, 2015. 

As of this date, the certification basis and applicable amendment levels have not been 

finalized for the amended type certificate. Therefore, we cannot begin to process your 

request until the certification basis is resolved. This is to notify you that we have put your 

request for exemption on hold pending closure of the related G-1 issue paper. Once the G-1 

issue paper is closed, we will be able to process your exemption request. Or, if applicable, 

you may wish to withdraw your request at that time. 

This should not be construed as a denial of your request. The purpose of this letter is to 

notify you that we have received your petition for exemption and that it is currently on hold. 

Should you have any questions regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact 

Mr. Jayson Claar at (425) 227-2194, or by e-mail at Jayson.Claar@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

as rson 

Manager, irframe & Cabin Safety 

Transport Standards Staff 

COPY 

OF ORIG INAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Uber, Inc., a New York corporation, 

individually and as representative of all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 

an Ohio corporation, dba Nationwide; 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-CV-648

Judge: Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

Stipulation and Order Dismissing Action

Without Prejudice

Plaintiff, Uber, Inc., and Defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance 

Company dba Nationwide, as the parties to this case, hereby stipulate, through their 

counsel of record, that the above-captioned putative class action be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). This action shall be deemed 

dismissed without prejudice upon entry of the Court’s order on this stipulation. Plaintiff 

and Defendant also stipulate that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees 

in connection with this action.

Case: 2:18-cv-00648-EAS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 09/27/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 233
2

DATED: September 27, 2018 /s/ Robert E. DeRose II 

Robert E. DeRose II (OH Bar No. 0055214)

BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN

GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP

250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

Telephone: (614) 221-4221

Facsimile: (614) 744-2300

Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

Trial Attorney for UBER, INC.,

a New York corporation

DATED: September 27, 2018 /s/ Damon Rubin 

C. Darryl Cordero (CA Bar No. 126689)*

Damon Rubin (CA Bar No. 186504)*

PAYNE & FEARS LLP

400 Continental Blvd., Suite 600

El Segundo, CA 90245

Telephone: (310) 689-1750

Facsimile: (310) 689-1755

Email: cdc@paynefears.com

Email: dr@paynefears.com

Attorneys for UBER, INC.,

a New York corporation

* Admitted pro hac vic

Case: 2:18-cv-00648-EAS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 09/27/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 234
3

DATED: September 27, 2018 /s/ Frank F. Owen 

Frank F. Owen (FL Bar No. 702188)*

FRANK OWEN & ASSOCIATES PA

1091 Ibis Avenue

Miami Springs, FL 33166

Telephone: (954) 964-8000

Email: FFO@CastlePalms.com

Attorney for UBER, INC.,

a New York corporation

* Admitted pro hac vice

DATED: September 27, 2018 /s/ J. Todd Kennard 

J. Todd Kennard (OH Bar No. 0068441)

JONES DAY

325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 600

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 469-3939

Facsimile: (614) 461-4198

Email: jtkennard@jonesday.com

Trial Attorney for NATIONWIDE

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Ohio corporation, dba Nationwide

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September ___, 2018 _____________________________

Columbus, Ohio HON. EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

United States District Judge

Case: 2:18-cv-00648-EAS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 09/27/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 235
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was filed through the Court’s ECF system on 

September 27, 2018, notice of which will be sent electronically to all counsel of record.

/s/ Damon Rubin

Damon Rubin 

4825-9328-3186.6

Case: 2:18-cv-00648-EAS-EPD Doc #: 34 Filed: 09/27/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 236
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         99,383
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,308,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                   96,432
<INVENTORY>                                    631,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,450,802
<PP&E>                                         63,625,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,524,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,551,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,144,652
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       18,527
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,220,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,551,657
<SALES>                                        16,747,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,747,354
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,676,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               29,787
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             838,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                202,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                   77,197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.07
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICKIE ROBE RICHBURG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 458 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of May, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the “Annual
      Report”) of China Sky One Medical, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the year ending
      December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof, I, Han Xiao-Yan, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the
      Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Registrant.




By:
            /s/
              Han
              Xiao-YanHan
              Xiao-YanChief Financial Officer
              and
              Director(Principal Financial and
              Accounting Officer)Dated this 8th day of November,
              2007
Reconstruction is included in the NPIAS when normal maintenance procedures are no

longer economical and effective.

STANDARDS
Standards projects include development to bring existing airports up to design criteria recommended by the FAA. This is the largest development category, accounting for 37 percent ofthe NPIAS, up from 21 percent in the 1993report. This is due largely to a change inhow the FAA classifies certain types ofdevelopment. FAA now classifies apron expansion, taxiway construction, and other development to accommodate additional aircraft atuncongested airports as standards rather than capacity, as itwas in thepast. Many commercial service airports were designed up to 50 years ago to serve relatively small and slow aircraft, but are now being used by larger and faster turboprop andjet aircraft. As aresult, runways andtaxiways mustbe relocated to provide greater clearance for aircraft with long wing spans, and aircraft parking areas must be adapted to accommodate larger aircraft. Standards development atgeneral aviation and reliever airports is generallyjustified to accommodate a substantial number ofoperations by "critical" aircraft with sizes and operating characteristics that were not foreseen at the time oforiginal construction. Ifitis not undertaken, aircraft maybe required to limit fuel
orpassenger loads because ofinadequate runway length. The FAA usually requires an indication that an aircraft type will account for at least 500 annual itinerant operations at
an airportbefore development is included inthe NPIAS to accommodate it.

ENVIRONMENT
Environment includes development to achieve an acceptable balance between airport operational requirements and the expectations ofresidents ofthe surrounding area for a quiet and wholesome environment. This development supplements the large noise reductions that arebeing achieved by quieter aircraft andthe use ofnoise abatement procedures. It accounts for 5 percent ofNPIAS costs and includes the relocation of households and soundproofing ofresidences and public buildings in areas underlying aircraft approach and departure paths. Most ofthe cost is for land acquisition in fee simple oreasements to compensate property owners for overflights. Environmental costs
are concentrated at airports with frequent flights byjet aircraft (43 percent large hubs, 29 percent medium hubs, 16percent smallhubs,S percent nonhubs, and 6percent reliever airports). This development is part ofan extensive Federal and industry program, involving land use planning, quieter aircraft, and noise abatement procedures, that has reduced the estimated number ofpeople exposed to significant noise by approximately 75 percent since 1975 (see figure 7 onpage 18).

38
EXHIBIT A-1

Case: 2:18-cv-00809-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 1 of 6  PAGEID #: 11

EXHIBIT A-1

Case: 2:18-cv-00809-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 2 of 6  PAGEID #: 12

EXHIBIT A-1

Case: 2:18-cv-00809-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 3 of 6  PAGEID #: 13

EXHIBIT A-1

Case: 2:18-cv-00809-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 4 of 6  PAGEID #: 14

EXHIBIT A-1

Case: 2:18-cv-00809-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 5 of 6  PAGEID #: 15

EXHIBIT A-1

Case: 2:18-cv-00809-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 08/08/18 Page: 6 of 6  PAGEID #: 16