alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Virgil Wayne ROBERTS *v.*CITY OF CONWAY

CA CR 79-28

586 S.W. 2d 13

Opinion delivered August 22, 1979

and released for publication September 12, 1979

*Guy H. Jones, Jr., Guy H. Jones, Phil Stratton*and *Casey Jones,*for appellant.

*Jesse W. Thompson,*City Atty., for appellee.

David Newbern, Judge.

Appellee Roberts was convicted in Conway Municipal Court of driving while under the influence of intoxicants, first and second offenses, and driving a vehicle without a license. The municipal court trial took place March 28, 1977. The conviction was appealed, and the appeal came on for trial (de novo) in the Circuit Court on February 8, 1979.1_

*826At the Circuit Court hearing, a motion to dismiss was presented. It was based on the requirement of A.R. Crim. P. 28.1 and 28.2 that a defendant must be brought to trial before the end of the third full term of court from the time the charge is filed. Excluded from the limitation period is “the period of delay resulting from a continuance granted at the request of the defendant or his counsel.” A.R. Crim. P. 28.3 (c).

At the hearing in the Circuit Court, the defense counsel moved to dismiss. He and the City Attorney stipulated that three terms of court had passed since the December 1976 term. The defense counsel referred to a circuit court docket notation that on July 20,1978, the case was “continued at the request of the defendant.” The defense counsel then commenced to “testify” that he had been counsel for the defendant since before the munciipal court trial, and that at no time had the defendant ever moved for a continuance. The City Attorney insisted the Court accept the docket notation made by the former circuit judge.

The conviction was affirmed, with the Court noting that the defendant had failed to appear, preferring to stand on his motion to dismiss.

Assuming without deciding that Rule 28.1, et seq., apply to cases appealed to circuit courts as well as to cases in which charges are filed in circuit courts, we affirm the Court’s action. The only evidence before the Court consisted of the docket notation. Counsel for the defendant was not sworn, no affidavits were filed, and no witnesses were called. The Court had no choice but to rely on the docket notation.

This case is easily distinguishable from *Holland*v. *State,*252 Ark. 730, 480 S.W. 2d 579 (1972), in which there was a joint stipulation that the defendant had not sought a continuance. See also, *Baugh*v. *City of Pine Bluff,*257 Ark. 768, 520 S.W. 2d 275 (1975), where the Arkansas Supreme Court makes it clear that in a case such as this, the defendant has an affirmative obligation to offer proof that any delay was not at the instance of the defendant.

Affirmed.

1

No mention is made on this appeal that the special municipal judge *826who initially convicted the defendant and the circuit judge to whose court the case was appealed were the same person.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 3

- 3031

_____________________________
J ONES , M ARCUS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Linda L. Nobles , Judge

.

February 21, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. The Court dismisses the appeal as untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b)

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jones, Marcus, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JERONE MCDOUGALD, Case No. 1:18-cv-498
Black, J.
Plaintiff, Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
SHANNON BEAR, et al., SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
MOTION TO PROCEED
Defendants. IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 5). For the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation of July 27, 2018 (Doc. 3), plaintiff's motion should be DENIED.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Date: Ll2e 4 Zoic, Zi, :
Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrat dge

United States District Court



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
JERONE MCDOUGALD, Case No. 1:18-cv-498
Black, J.
Plaintiff, Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
SHANNON BEAR, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the
record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems
sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another
party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
{00320069-1}

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Tamera Brown, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

City of Cincinnati, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18cv412

Judge McFarland

Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

ORDER

Defendants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response to 

Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation is hereby GRANTED. 

Defendants are to file any responses by October 1, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ________________ _______________________

Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 54-1 Filed: 09/04/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 674
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         SHOLODGE, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                       PRIMARY AND ASSUMING FULL DILUTION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               16 WEEKS ENDED
                                                                        -----------------------------
                                                                          APRIL 20,        APRIL 21,
                                                                            1997             1996
                                                                        -----------------------------
<S>                                                                     <C>               <C>
PRIMARY:

  EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK (PRIMARY):
     BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGE                      $ 2,039,143       $ 1,994,441
     CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF A CHANGE IN AN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE           $(1,164,114)
                                                                        -----------       -----------
     NET EARNINGS                                                       $   875,029       $ 1,994,441
                                                                        ===========       ===========

  SHARES:
     WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON
      EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING                                       8,354,236         8,396,361
                                                                        ===========       ===========

  PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
     BEFORE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGE                      $      0.24       $      0.24
     CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF A CHANGE IN AN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE           $     (0.14)
                                                                        -----------       -----------
     NET EARNINGS                                                       $      0.10       $      0.24
                                                                        ===========       ===========
</TABLE>

Fully diluted earnings per share are not presented as the effect of the
conversion of the Company's subordinated convertible debentures is antidilutive
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY OF CANADA,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:18-cv-206

v.
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

TIMOTHY B. FRANCIS and
TODD R. VANATTA,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT TIMOTHY B.
FRANCIS (DOC. #16); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF TODD
R. VANATTA IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,000.00; CLERK OF COURT IS
DIRECTED TO DISBURSE FUNDS ACCORDINGLY; PLAINTIFF
DISCHARGED FROM ALL LIABILITY RELATED TO POLICY
PROCEEDS; TERMINATION ENTRY

Plaintiff, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, filed this statutory
interpleader action against Timothy B. Francis and Todd R. Vanatta. Francis and
Vanatta filed competing claims for $68,000.00 in life insurance proceeds on the life
of Shannon E. Vanatta, who died on August 24, 2017. On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff
deposited the $68,000.00 with the Clerk of Court.

Todd Vanatta, Shannon’s ex-husband, filed a timely Answer. Doc. #9.
Although Timothy Francis, Shannon’s son, waived service, Doc. #6, he failed to
file an Answer. On January 8, 2019, the Clerk entered default against him. Doc.

#14, Plaintiff has now moved for default judgment against Francis. Doc. #16.


Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), the Court finds that default judgment is
warranted. Because Francis failed to answer the interpleader complaint, he has
forfeited any claim of entitlement to the life insurance proceeds. See SunLife of
Canada, (U.S.) v. Conroy, 431 F. Supp. 2d 220, 226 (D.R.1. 2006) (“A named
interpleader defendant who fails to answer the interpleader complaint and assert
a claim to the res forfeits any claim of entitlement that might have been
asserted”); Usable Life Co. v. Gann, No. 1:09-cv-77, 2009 WL 4348588, at *2 (E.D.
Tenn. Nov. 24, 2009). The Court therefore SUSTAINS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant, Timothy B. Francis, Doc. #16.

Todd R. Vannata, the only remaining claimant, is entitled to the funds that
were deposited with the Clerk of Court. Co/umbus Life Ins. Co. v. Walker-Macklin,
No. 1:15-cv-535, 2016 WL 4007092, at *3 (S.D. Ohio July 25, 2016). Judgment shall
be entered in his favor in the amount of $68,000.00. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to disburse the funds accordingly. Plaintiff, Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada, is discharged from liability for all claims related to the policy
proceeds.

The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western

Division, at Dayton.


} )
Date: February 4, 2019 Loe

WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 4, 2010
    /s/  Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterExecutive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Assistant Secretary
Exhibit
32.1




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 Annual Report of BrandPartners Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.




BY:
                    /S/
      James F. BrooksJames
      F. BrooksChief
      Executive Officer, Presidentand
      Interim Accounting OfficerApril
      29, 2009




A SIGNED
ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO
THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Kenneth Y. Tanji,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (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: August 11, 2008 |  |                      |  |                                                     
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Kenneth Y. Tanji
|                       |  | Name:                |  | Kenneth Y. Tanji                                    
|                       |  | Title:               |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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.
Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 5, 2009
    /s/  Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterVice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Denise Jackson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv450 

Wal-Mart, Inc., 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 July 10, 2019 (Doc. 20). 

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. 20) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 20) of the Magistrate Judge is 

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

defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED and Counts C, D, E and G are 

DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA CLAY JOHNSON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 30076

D.C. No. 3:11

- cr

- 00023

- RRB

- 4

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Joshua Clay Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Kelle r , 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) , we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 30076

Johnson contends that the district court did not give sufficient consideration

to his arguments for release and the totali ty of the circumstances

, and clearly erred

in concluding that he was receiving adequate medical care in prison

, that he was

equally vulnerable to COVID

- 19 outside of custody , and that his release would

pose a danger to the public

. But, the court acknowledged Johnson’s arguments and

its factual findings had support in the record. The court did not abuse its discretion

in concluding that (1) Johnson had failed to show extraordinary and compelling

circumstances warranting compassionate release, and (2) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors did not support release in light o f Johnson’s significant criminal history and

the many disciplinary infractions he has incurred while incarcerated

. See United

States v. Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its

discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the

record).

AFFIRMED.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 687 

Honoring the life and legacy of Coya Knutson. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 

Ms. SMITH (for herself and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and legacy of Coya Knutson. 

Whereas Cornelia Genevive Gjesdal ‘‘Coya’’ Knutson was 

born on August 22, 1912, in Edmore, North Dakota; 

Whereas Coya Gjesdal graduated from Concordia College in 

Moorhead, Minnesota, with majors in English and Music 

and a minor in Education; 

Whereas Coya Gjesdal married Andy Knutson in 1940 and 

later adopted a son; 

Whereas Coya Knutson was involved in her community, working as a teacher, volunteering, establishing a medical clinic, and serving on the Red Lake County Welfare Board; 

Whereas Coya Knutson was elected to the House of Representatives of Minnesota in 1950; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 687 IS 

Whereas State Representative Knutson supported health and 

education initiatives and sponsored the first clean air bill 

in Minnesota, which prohibited smoking in some public 

places; 

Whereas, in 1954, Coya Knutson won a seat in the House 

of Representatives of the United States, despite having 

lost the nomination of her party to a man; 

Whereas Coya Knutson became the first woman elected to 

Congress from Minnesota; 

Whereas Congresswoman Knutson became the first woman to 

be appointed to the Committee on Agriculture of the 

House of Representatives; 

Whereas Congresswoman Knutson sponsored legislation that 

eventually led to expanded school lunch assistance, the 

first Federal student loan program, and the first appropriations for research on cystic fibrosis; 

Whereas Congresswoman Knutson’s husband did not support 

her career and reportedly wrote a public letter in 1958 

ordering her to return to Minnesota to ‘‘make a home for 

[her] son and husband’’; 

Whereas the story of the letter was taken up by the national 

press, with newspapers across the United States running 

the headline ‘‘Coya, Come Home’’; 

Whereas Coya Knutson lost reelection in 1958 to a man 

whose campaign slogan was ‘‘A Big Man for a Man-Sized 

Job’’; 

Whereas Coya Knutson eventually divorced her husband, 

moved permanently to Washington, DC, and was appointed by President Kennedy to be the liaison officer in 

the Office of Civil Defense at the Department of Defense, 

where she served until 1970; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 687 IS 

Whereas Coya Knutson retired from politics and moved back 

to Minnesota to live with her son and his family until her 

death in 1996 at 82 years of age; and 

Whereas Coya Knutson was a trailblazer and an inspiration 

who was devoted to her community, State, and country: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors the life and legacy 

2 of Coya Knutson, whose dedication to overcoming excep3 tional odds and devotion to the well-being of the United 

4 States shall serve as an inspiration for generations of indi5 viduals in the United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,042,392
<SECURITIES>                                 1,744,273
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,199,583
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,812,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,079
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,087,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,812,256
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,986
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,638,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,638,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,638,019)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (44.07)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (44.07)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### People v Maskey,

No. 90932;

Court of Appeals No. 115950.
Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/13/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 117