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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

COLUMBUS DIVISION

RITA KINKELAAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cv-00681-GCS-KAJ

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Rita Kinkelaar, through her undersigned attorneys and respectfully 

states and prays:

1. On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case (Dkt. 1).

2. Defendant was served with Summons and the Complaint on July 19, 2018 (Dkt. 2), but has 

not filed a responsive allegation.

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Voluntary Dismissal.

(1) By the Plaintiff.

(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any 

applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by 

filing:

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment; or

(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without 

prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal-or state-court action based 

Case: 2:18-cv-00681-GCS-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/07/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 14
-2-

on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the 

merits.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, 28 U.S.C. (emphasis added).

4. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff respectfully notifies the voluntary 

dismissal of the Complaint, without prejudice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to GRANT the instant

request for voluntary dismissal of the present case without prejudice.

CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been filed with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record

and also sent by US Postal Service to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. at 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, 

OH 43240.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on August 7, 2018.

By: /s/ Peter Cozmyk

Peter Cozmyk

COZMYK LAW OFFICES, LLC

6100 Oak Tree Blvd., Ste. 200

Independence, OH 44131

P: (877) 570-4440

F: (216) 485-2125

E: Pcozmyk@cozmyklaw.com

By: /s/ Carlos C. Alsina

Carlos C. Alsina

Attorney for Plaintiff

Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, PC

4740 Green River Rd., Ste. 206

Corona, CA 92880

T: (657) 363-3331

F: (657) 246-1311

E: CarlosA@jlohman.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00681-GCS-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/07/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 15
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-146V Filed: December 19, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * D.S., a minor, by and through his natural * guardian, TESSA SKRYPEK, *
* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Rotavirus Vaccination; * Intussusception; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Robert P. Coleman, U.S. D epartment of Justice, Wash ington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On February 1, 2016, petit ioner filed a petition fo r compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”) on behalf of D.S. Petitioner alleges that D.S. suffered from an intussusception as a result of receiving a rotavirus vaccination on June 5, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.

On December 16, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report and proffer on award of compensation in which she c oncedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Ru le 4(c) Report and Proffer on Award of Compensation at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that D.S. suffered

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 intussusception within t he Table definition.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that based on the medical records “petitioner has met the statutory requirements for entitlement to compensation.” Id. Respondent additionally in dicates that “based on the current record, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites fo r compensation under the
Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ChemTrak
Incorporated for the quarter ended June 30, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       5,989,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,489,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  500,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    700,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,000
<PP&E>                                       3,009,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,831,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,327,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,907,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,831,000
<SALES>                                        581,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               606,000
<CGS>                                          824,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  824,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,908,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,133,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,133,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,133,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
1

`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Lawrence R. Burfitt, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv260 

C/O M. Erving, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

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

Magistrate Judge on October 30, 2018 (Doc. 22). 

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. 22) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 22) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby 

ADOPTED. The Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 10) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT

    THIS  AMENDMENT TO OPTION  AGREEMENT (the  "Amendment")  is made and entered
into this 22nd day of December  1999,  by and between  Flanders  Corporation,  a
North  Carolina  corporation  (formerly  known  as  Elite  Acquisitions,   Inc.)
("Flanders  Corporation"),  Flanders Filters, Inc., a North Carolina corporation
("Flanders  Filters")  (Flanders  Corporation and Flanders Filters are sometimes
hereinafter  collectively  referred  to as the  "Company"),  and Robert  Amerson
("Amerson"  or  the  "Executive").  In  this  Amendment,  Flanders  Corporation,
Flanders  Filters,  and Amerson,  together with their  successors  and permitted
assignees,  are  separately  referred  to as a "Party" and  collectively  as the
"Parties."

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

    WHEREAS, Flanders Corporation,  Flanders Filters and Amerson entered into an
Option Agreement (the "Agreement") dated February 22, 1996.

    WHEREAS,  Flanders  Corporation,  Flanders  Filters and Amerson  amended the
Agreement on December 22, 1999; and

    WHEREAS,  Flanders  Corporation,  Flanders  Filters  and  Amerson  desire to
further amend the Agreement upon the terms provided herein.

    NOW,  THEREFORE,  for good  and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the Parties hereby agree to amend
the Agreement as follows:

    1.  AMENDMENT TO EXPIRATION DATE.

    The expiration date of the Option Agreement shall end on February 22, 2006.

    2.  NUMBER OF SHARES

    The number of shares shall remain 1,000,000 which may be purchased  pursuant
    to the Agreement.

Dated: 12-22-99                  /s/ Robert R. Amerson
                                 Robert Amerson
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700191

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### ROBERT D. STEWART Master Sergeant ( E

- 8 ), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. Robinson, Jr.
, USMC. Convening Authority: C ommand ing General
, Ma rine Corps

Installations Pacific, Okinawa, Japan

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommend ation: Colonel W illiam N

. Pigo t t , USMC

. For Appellant : C aptain Thomas R. Fricton, USMC

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 31 October 2017

_________________________ Before G LASER

- A LLEN , H UTCHISON , and S AYEGH , Appellate Mi litary Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, 

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA 

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

This document relates to: 

ALL ACTIONS.

 Case No. 2:18-md-2846

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

ORDER

The Court has received in camera a motion from plaintiffs represented by Leger, Ketchum 

& Cohoon, PLLC and Constant Legal Group, LLC. The Court will not consider a motion of this 

type unless all interested parties have had an opportunity to review and respond to the motion. 

Additionally, any party seeking to file a brief under seal must file a motion seeking leave to file 

that brief under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5/10/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 843 Filed: 05/10/24 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 9388
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<CAPTION>                                     RESTATED
<S>                             <C>           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                              0          2235
<SECURITIES>                        0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                   42366         55554
<ALLOWANCES>                     3286          2762
<INVENTORY>                         0             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                39623         60179
<PP&E>                          11207         25394
<DEPRECIATION>                   7651         15749
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  46795         81957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           28918         46838
<BONDS>                             0             0
<COMMON>                          100           100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0             0
<PREFERRED>                         0             0
<OTHER-SE>                      14777         17629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    46795         81957
<SALES>                         52733         43560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                52733         43560
<CGS>                           41689         36401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   41689         36401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 7627          4341
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                565           543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  2852          2275
<INCOME-TAX>                     1070           853
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1782          1422
<DISCONTINUED>                  (2482)        (1399)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0             0
<CHANGES>                           0             0
<NET-INCOME>                     (700)           23
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (.08)          .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (.08)          .00

        

</TABLE>
#### Desmond BRYAN v. STATE of Arkansas

696 S.W.2d 306

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 9, 1985

*John R. Mercy,*for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Clint Miller,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Desmond Bryan, by his attorney, John R. Mercy, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

The motion admits that the record was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion, *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle, J., not participating.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cr-109-12

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

SETH NEZAT,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL MINUTES: CHANGE OF PLEA ON INDICTMENT

Defendant appeared by video with counsel Jay Clark

Defendant advised of right to appear in person, but consented to appear by video

Defendant arraigned and specifically advised of rights

Plea Agreement summarized by AUSA Megan Gaffney

Statement of Facts read by AUSA Megan Gaffney

Defendant pled GUILTY to Count 1

Plea accepted by the Court

Referred to Probation Department for Presentence Report

Defendant remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal

Judge: Douglas R. Cole

Courtroom Deputy: Scott Lang

Court Reporter: Sue Lopreato-Official

Date: January 28, 2021

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 178 Filed: 01/28/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 895
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 3
- 2134 LT Case No s . 2014
- CF
- 491

2014
- CF
- 821 2014
- CF
- 822 2014
- CF
- 823

_____________________________ I RWIN H ICKS , J R . , Petitioner , v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent .

_____________________________ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction. Irwin Hicks, Jr. , Arcadia , pro se . No Appearance for Respondent. November 17, 2023 P ER C URIAM . Having considered Petitioner’s response , filed October 27, 2023, to this Court’s order , and finding that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Petitioner is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further2

pro se filings concerning Lake County Circuit Court C ase Nos. 2014
- CF
- 491, 2014
- CF
- 821, 2014
- CF
- 822 , and 2014
- CF
- 823 . Therefore, because Petitioner’s repetitious, frivolous filings have become an abuse of the legal process, we hold that Petitioner is barre d from future pro se filings in this Court concerning Lake County Circuit Court C ase Nos. 2014
- CF
- 491, 2014
- CF
- 821, 2014
- CF
- 822 , and 2014
- CF
- 823 . The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future filings regarding the referenced cases, unless they are filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. This includes any post
- disposition motion filed in response to this order. F URTHE R P RO S E F ILINGS P ROHIBITED . M AKAR , E ISNAUGLE , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur .
Case: 1:18-cv-00598-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 24
Case: 1:18-cv-00598-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 25
Case: 1:18-cv-00598-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 26
Case: 1:18-cv-00598-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 27
Case: 1:18-cv-00598-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 28
Case: 1:18-cv-00598-TSB Doc #: 2 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 29
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.01


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 Dean Witter Global
Perspective Portfolio L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jeffrey A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:	    	Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:   	President

Date:	    	November 14, 2003











	<page> EXHIBIT 32.02


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 Dean Witter Global
Perspective Portfolio L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey D. Hahn

Name:		Jeffrey D. Hahn
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		November 14, 2003
A.D. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160093

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN 

DIVISION

Richard Wagner,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:18-cv- 810

v. Judge James L. Graham 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

My Bucket List, LLC, 

Defendant.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant toRule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, , the parties 

stipulate that this case shouldbe dismissed with prejudice with each party bearing its own costs and 

attorney’s fees.. The parties further stipulate that the Court may retain jurisdiction over this matter 

to enforce the terms of any agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendants.

Respectfully submitted by,

Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for Defendants:

\s\ Owen B Dunn Jr _ /s/ William D. Edwards 

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. (0074743) William D. Edwards (0062861)

Law Office of Owen B. Dunn, Jr ULMER & BERNE LLP

4334 W. Central Avenue, Suite 222 1660 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1100

Toledo, OH 43615 Cleveland, Ohio 44113

(419) 241-9661 – Phone (216) 583-7150 - Phone

(419) 241-9737 - Facsimile E-mail: wdedwards@ulmer.com

Email: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

and

Valerie J. Fatica (0083812) 

4334 W. Central Avenue, Suite 222 

Toledo, OH 43615 

(419) 654-1622 - Phone

valeriefatica@gmail.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/07/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 48
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN 

DIVISION

Richard Wagner,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:18-cv- 810 

v. Judge James L. Graham 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

My Bucket List, LLC, 

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Upon stipulation of the parties and the Court being fully advised of the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice with each party 

bearing their own costs and attorney’s fees. Entry of this Order resolves all pending claims and 

closes the case. 

________________________________

Hon. Judge James L. Graham

Dated: __________________________

Case: 2:18-cv-00810-JLG-CMV Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/07/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 49