alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 93 (Rev. 11/13) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2

Return
Case No.: Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with:
BAB my IST 06]2¢/eo13 Ni -
de in th f's oe ©
Inventory made in the presence 0} N/a .
Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized: eit
&
The Filling S items and theic electronic Contents . 2
ie)
'. Systemax Desktop Grputer - Sy [06238257 2

2. Acer Laptop Gnpuker - SIN LxA2N0Y002962 151160

3. Black Tower Compurere - No MAKE, MopeC , on S/N

4. 16 Mover L6-Ki2o, sip GosvT8b3s2133

5. ZTE cellular phone , more ZIS6 - Tuer Sb1!7 003624072
Sw 32027442104)

Certification

I declare under penalty of perjury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with the original warrant to the
designated judge.

Date:

ee fe)

Executing officer's féenature

SPECIAL AGent — Mictnee J. [teRwie

Printed name and title 1
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Abaxis, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  August 9, 2010
    /s/ Clinton H. SeversonClinton H. SeversonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

STATE OF OHIO
EX REL TED MARCUM,
Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-437
- VS - District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK,
Respondent.
RECOMMITTAL ORDER

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Supplemental Objections (ECF No. 26) to two

Reports and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Merz (ECF No. 16 & 17), combined in the

same document with initial Objections to Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report and Recommendations

on motion for Temporary Protection Order (ECF No. 18).

he District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions

to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that

analysis.

January 24 , 2018.

Walter Herbert Rice

United States District Judge
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

DECKER CONSTRUCTION CO., : 

 : Case No. 2:18-cv-727 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : Magistrate Judge Deavers 

WESEX CORPORATION, et. al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

 [] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been 

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. 

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have 

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. 

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the 

September 18, 2018 Order the Court GRANTED the Motion for 

Default Judgment. This action is DISMISSED. 

Date: September 18, 2018 Richard W. Nagel, Clerk 

 

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:18-cv-00727-ALM-EPD Doc #: 24 Filed: 09/18/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 198
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                     794
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 175,375
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 176,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 536,950
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   8,727
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 369,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 176,169
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175,845                 318,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (175,845)               (318,538)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (175,845)               (318,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (175,845)               (318,538)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
#### Alexander CRAIG, Adm’r. *v.*STATE FARM AUTO INSURANCE CO

74-279

519 S.W. 2d 741

Opinion delivered March 3, 1975

[Rehearing denied March 31, 1975.]

*752*Daggett, Daggett & Van Dover*by: *Jesse B. Daggett,*for appellant.

*Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Boswell, P.A.,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

At issue in this action by appellant Alexander Craig, Administrator of the Estate of Jeff Craig, deceased, against appellee State Farm Auto insurance Company, is whether the driver of an uninsured vehicle was responsible in any manner for the acts of his passenger in tossing a sack of cans into the path of a Volkswagen driven by Dianne Birdsong. Jeff Craig was a passenger in the Volkswagen. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of State Farm at the close of appellant’s evidence.

The record shows that Dianne Birdsong was driving a Volkswagen on Interstate 55 toward Memphis, Tennessee. While driving along she noticed a white Chevrolet truck with two men in it that was slowing down traffic. After the traffic would get by the truck it would speed up and pass the traffic arid then repeat the slowing down process. Dianne stayed behind the truck until it kept getting slower and slower. When she finally pulled into the left lane of traffic to pass the truck the driver of the truck looked at her as she got even with the truck and speeded up and got in front of the Volkswagen. The passenger in the truck turned around and looked at the Volkswagen. The truck passenger then held a sack of cans out the window on the passenger’s side of the truck and at the appropriate moment, gave it a toss so that the cans rolled under the Volkswagen with the sack hitting the windshield. As a result of the tossing of the sack of cans, the Volkswagen went off the road causing the death of Jeff Craig. The white Chevrolet truck did not stop but left the scene of the accident.

State Farm points out that their uninsured motorist policy only covers the “owner or operator” of the uninsured vehicle. To support the action of the trial court it then argues that unless one is to engage in a guessing game, there is simp*753ly no evidence that the driver participated in any manner in throwing the sack from the truck or indeed knew that the passenger was throwing the sack from the truck.

Had not the two men in the truck been slowing down, jamming up traffic to the rear and then accelerating the truck rapidly to pass everyone only to repeat the slowing and jamming of traffic, there might be some merit to State Farm’s contention. But when we consider the previous conduct of the driver of the uninsured vehicle in slowing and jamming traffic together with his conduct in leaving the scene of the accident after the sack throwing incident, we find that there is substantial evidence to go to the jury on the issue of his participation in the hazardous traffic game that was being played. See Restatement of Torts § 877(b).

Reversed and remanded.
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

 April 17, 2015

 

Ms. Colleen Witt

Phillips Respironics 

1740 Golden Mile Highway

Monroeville, PA 15146

Dear Ms. Witt,

This is in response to your letter dated January 22, 2015, posted to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2009-1059) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate 

rulemaking to amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 106 of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In your petition, you request an amendment to 

SFAR No. 106 for use of portable oxygen concentrator systems on board aircraft. This 

amendment would include the Respironics SimplyGo Mini POC in the list of approved 

portable oxygen concentrators (POC) for use on board aircraft.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when 

making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition 

for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

Each year, the FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to 

the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers 

the most value to the aviation system. 

After reviewing your request based on the current priorities for the FAA and the 

guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria 

to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the 

proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will 

examine when we consider future rulemaking. 

While the FAA is denying this petition for rulemaking, please note that the FAA issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 19, 2014, regarding acceptance 
2

criteria for POCs on board aircraft (Docket: FAA-2014-0554; DOT/FAA: 2120-AK32). 

You can find out and track information concerning the publication of a Final rule with a 

discussion of comments through the following websites:

• Federal Government Docket website (http://www.regulations.gov/#!home)

• You can find the status on the DOT’s semi-annual regulatory agenda, through 

the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website 

(http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain). 

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 

14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking
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 Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 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: September 4, 2009



/s/    Stephen PelletierName:

Stephen PelletierTitle:

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
      32.2**






**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 on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
      “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
      Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
                Company.






**/** s **/** Michael
      Barth


Michael
      Barth


Chief
      Financial Officer


November
      13, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>








<ARTICLE>                     5




<MULTIPLIER>                                          1000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                              7,012
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     313,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  387,424
<PP&E>                                            725,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,309,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             301,603
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        595,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,309,342
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,230,100
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,138,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1,010)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  9,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    82,449
<INCOME-TAX>                                       33,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                49,814
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       49,814
<EPS-BASIC>                                          1.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.82






</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40869

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

RILEY RENE VALLEJO,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-735-2

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Riley Rene Vallejo has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Vallejo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Vallejo’s claim of ineffective assistance related 

to his mental health issues; we therefore decline to consider the claim without 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40869 Document: 00514043275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2017
No. 16-40869

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Vallejo’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review; 

we further determine that Vallejo’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel present no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the motion 

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40869 Document: 00514043275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-132

Armando Roman 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 31) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: October 1, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 18, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-18-1999
<CASH>                                      12,412,891
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,880,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                   618,554
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,853,549
<PP&E>                                     195,333,653
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,686,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             303,136,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,576,519
<BONDS>                                    131,552,794
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  97,126,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               303,136,156
<SALES>                                     18,258,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,472,388
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,119,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,674,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                605,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                   230,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            375,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   375,976
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Clicker Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Albert
Aimers, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to Clicker Inc. and will be retained by Clicker Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  January
      19, 2010
            By:
            /s/ ALBERT
      AIMERSAlbert
      Aimers
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer