alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RA J A A FTA B A K BA R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 73565 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 306- 278 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 12, 2013 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , R E IN H A R D T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R a j aA f t ab A kba r , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of P a ki s t a n, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen a n dto r e is s u e its p r e v io u s d e c is io n b a s e do n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED MA R 25 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 73565 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , a n dr e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law . Moh am m ed v. G o n z a les , 40 0 F . 3d 78 5, 79 1-92 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). W e grantthe pet i t i on for r evi ew a n dr e m a n dto th e B I A . T he B I A abus e d i tdi s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng A kba r ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd re i ss ue. T he B IA erre d i n fi nd i ng thatA kb ari s barre d from di sc re t i on ary r el i ef un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9c(d)( 1)(B ). B ec ause A kb arw as un aw ar e thathi s c ou nsel fa i l ed t o p re se rve the vo l un t ary departure per i od despi t e s ec uri ng a s t ayof re m ov al w hi l e hi s pr i orpe t i t i on f orr e vi e w w a s pe ndi ng be f or e thi s c ourt , he di d not v o lu n tar ilyf

a il to d e p a rt du r in g h is v o lu n taryd e p a rtu r e p e r io d . See M at te rof Zm i j ew ska , 2 4 I . & N . D e c . 8 7 ( B I A 2 0 0 7 ) . A kb a rw a s th e r e f o r e p r e ju d ic e db yh is a tto rn e y ’s f

a ilu r e to p r e s e rv e h is g r a n t o f v o lu n taryd e p a rtu r e . See M oh am m ed , 400 F . 3d a t793- 794 ( pr e j udi c e i s e s t abl i s he d w he n c ouns e l ’ s e rr or s “ m a yha ve af fe ct ed the ou t com e of the proceedi ng s” ). W e r e m a n dto th e B I A f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is d is p o s itio n . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W G R A N T E D ; R E M A N D E D .
EXHIBIT E 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 237-7 Filed: 03/02/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 19792
Election Results Voting Age Populations 

10 Governor I 10 Att. Genera l I 08 President I 06 Att. General I 06 Auditor I 04 President 

District Kasich I Strickland I DeWine I Cordray I McCain I Obama I Mont. I Dann I Taylor I Sykes I Bush I Kerry PVI White I Hispanic I Black I Asian I Amlndian 

12- Tiberi 59.26% l 37.49% l 52.40% J 41.26% 1 54.97% L 43.54% l 57.93% l 42.06% J 58.94% L 41.05% J 61.16% 1 38.36% R+10 88.94% .l 1. 77% l 5.73% l 3.42% l 0.18% 

County Population %of District 

Franklin 216,382 30.01% 

Licking 166,492 23.09% 

Delaware 174,214 24.16% 

Marion 54,387 7.54% 

Morrow 34,827 4.83% 

Richland 74,730 10.36% 

Total 721,032 

REV _00000034 

Plaintiffs' Trial

Exhibit

P602

Case No. 1:18-cv-00357

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 237-7 Filed: 03/02/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 19793
EXHIBIT 32

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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust,
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Trust.



|              |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                        
|------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|              |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Bank of America, N.A.,                 
|              |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|              |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  |                                        
|July 28, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|              |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Nancy G. Willis                        
|              |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Vice President
1

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cv-544

 Judge Sargus, Jr.

v.

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

Defendant.

Jury Trial Day 2

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Before Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

For Plaintiff: John Marshall and Sam Schlein

For Defendant: Susan Williams, Wes Phillips and Paul Bernhart

Courtroom Deputy: Christin Werner

Courtroom Deputy: Crystal Hatchett

Cross examination of Deputy Chief Kenneth Kuebler by video deposition by 

defendant (attorney John Marshall). 

Lou Reiter called by plaintiff (attorney Sam Schlein).

Mr. Reiter testified to exhibit 2.

Cross examination of Mr. Reiter by defendant (attorney Wes Phillips).

Mr. Reiter testified to exhibits JE 1, JE 2, JE 3, JE 5 and JE 6.

Redirect examination of Mr. Reiter by plaintiff (attorney Schlein).

Recross examination of Mr. Reiter by defendant (attorney Phillips).

Re redirect examination of Mr. Reiter by plaintiff (attorney Schlein).

Lieutenant Melissa McFadden called by plaintiff (attorney John Marshall). 

Lt. McFadden testified to plaintiff exhibits 22, 8, 14, 13, 19, 20, 18 and 17. 

Cross examination of Lt. McFadden by defendant (attorney Susan Williams).

Lt. McFadden testified to exhibits JE 1, JE 2, JE 4, defendant exhibit 32, defendant 

exhibit 33 and plaintiff exhibit 19.

Redirect examination of Lt. McFadden by plaintiff (attorney Marshall).

Lt. McFadden testified to plaintiff exhibit 19.

Cross examination of Sergeant Levon Morefield by plaintiff (attorney Sam 

Schlein).

Sgt. Morefield testified to JE 5.

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/07/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5727
2

Cross examination of Sergeant Andre Tate by plaintiff (attorney Sam Schlein). 

Sgt. Tate testified to plaintiff exhibit 9.

Cross examination of Officer Anthony Johnson by plaintiff (attorney Sam Schlein).

4:30 p.m. Court adjourns until 8:45 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2022.

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 99 Filed: 06/07/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5728
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 Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending July 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Jerry C. YoungJerry C. YoungChief Financial OfficerAugust 2, 2005
] ) ^ 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Delbert Johnson d/b/a Two Dogs Aviation 

Complainant, 

V. 

Goidsboro Wayne Airport Authority 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-08-143 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to 14 CFR Section 16.11(a), the Director does hereby extend the date that the 

Director's initial determination will be rendered, in the above referenced case, to on or 

before October 16, 2009. 

An extension of time is essential for a fair and complete hearing of the matter before the 

agency. 

fcUoTf./ ^ 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Field Operations 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 5. 2009,1 caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy of the foregoing document addressed 

to: 

Glenn A. Barfield 

Post Office Drawer 7 

Goidsboro, NC 27533-0007 

(919) 735-6420 

Counsel for Complainant 

W. Harrell Everett, Jr. 

Everett, Womble, Lawrence & Brown, LLP 

507 B North Spence Avenue 

Goidsboro, NC 27532 

(919) 778-6707 

Pablo O. Niiesch 

Elaine C. Lippmann 

Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Counsel for Respondent 

Hand Delivered to: 

Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Deahdra Brooks 

Office of AirpoF^jCqpi^liance and 

Field Operations
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 73 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6758

ANTHONY GRANDISON; STEVEN H. OKEN; JOHN BOOTHEL; WESLEY EUGENE BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs,

Prisoners of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, under a sentence of death, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM J. CLINTON,

President, United States of America; JANET

RENO, Attorney General of the United States of

America; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, United States

Attorney for Maryland; EUGENE M. NUTH, Warden,

Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, et

al., Defendants, sued in their official

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-1396-S)

Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Grandison, Steven H. Oken, John Booth-El, Wesley Eugene

Baker, Appellants Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, Maryland inmates under death sentences, appeal the

district court’s order dismissing this action seeking a declaratory

judgment and injunctive relief and challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Each Appellant

has, or will have, pending in the district court a 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petition. Their respective entitlement to habeas corpus relief is the underlying case or controversy. A judgment in the subject action “would not resolve the

entire case or controversy as to any one of them, but would merely

determine a collateral legal issue governing certain aspects of

their pending or future suits.” Calderon v. Ashmus, 118 S.Ct. 1694,

1699 (1998). The Supreme Court in Calderon ruled that such an

action is not a justiciable case under U.S. Const. art III. See id.

at 1698-99.

We accordingly grant in forma pauperis status and affirm. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Annual Report of Garb Oil & Power Corporation, and
subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John C. Brewer, Chief 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, that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

         (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.



Date: 7/21/2005                             By: /s/ John C. Brewer
     -----------                               ------------------------
                                               John C. Brewer
                                               Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000056218-JUL-201209:49 AM
# GPC Broad Summary and Slice Report 32 Millennium BASF Corporation
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 19, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1201. MARK GARY HIGHSMITH v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On February 26, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than March 07, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 19, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Fund IV, LP
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         688
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,344
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               38
<PP&E>                                         125,241
<DEPRECIATION>                                 30,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,029
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     98,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,023
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,173
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (85)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,469
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,469
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.9



                              AIRPORT PLAZA LEASE

Date:                         November 25, 1998

Landlord:                     Barclay Associates
                              a California Partnership

Landlord's Address:           300 Drakes Landing Road, Suite 100
                              Greenbrae, CA 94904-3123

Tenant:                       GOLF ONE INDUSTRIES, INC. DBA GARY PLAYER

Tenant's Address:             2091 Business Center Drive, Suite #210
                              Irvine, CA 92715

Property:                     2091-2101 Business Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92715

Building:                     That certain office building located at 2091
                              Business Center Drive and situated on the
                              Property, and the landscaping, parking facilities,
                              and all other improvements and appurtenances to
                              the Property.

Leased Premises:              Approximately 3,424 SQFT rentable square feet of
                              office space located on the SECOND floor of the
                              Building and commonly known as Suite #210, as
                              outlined on the Floor Plan attached hereto as
                              Exhibit "B".

Permitted Use:                General Office Use

Lease Term:                   THREE YEARS (3) years and ZERO MONTHS (0) months

Scheduled Commencement Date:  DECEMBER 15, 1998

Monthly Basic Rent:           FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE AND 00/100
                              DOLLARS ($4,965.00)

Security Deposit:             FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100
                              DOLLARS ($5,650.00)

Base Year Costs:              1998 actual Operating Cost per rentable square
                              foot adjusted to 95% occupancy.

Building Hours:               Twenty-four access to Suite. HVAC from 6:30 a.m.
                              to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Parking Spaces:               FOURTEEN SPACES

Parking Charge:               N/A

Guarantors:                   N/A

Broker:                       BRIT CORPORATION AND GRUBB & ELLIS

Metropolitan Area:            Irvine, California

Late Charge Percentage:       Ten Percent (10%)

<PAGE>   2

Riders:             1 - Hazardous Materials
-------             2 - Additional Provisions

                    Exhibits
                    --------
                    A - Floor Plan
                    D - Building Rules and Regulations
*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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-10659

GEORGE S. ROBERTSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

( 4:98-CV-981-BE )

July 12, 2001

Before GARWOOD, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

Plaintiff-appellant George Robertson filed an interlocuotry

appeal of the district court’s March 3, 1999, “gag order”

restraining him from communicating with the media about his case

against the United States. We construe the district court’s order

as having expired upon the final disposition of Robertson’s suit,
2

and therefore as having no continuing effect on the parties.

Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of this issue, which is

moot. 

Robertson also appealed the district court’s denial of his

motion for default judgment against the United States. However,

this court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to appeals of final

decisions of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000). And, as

this claim is not “separable from, and collateral to, rights

asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too

independent of the cause itself to require that appellate

consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated,”

Adult Film Ass’n of America, Inc. v. Thetford, 776 F.2d 113, 115

(5th Cir. 1985), it is not susceptible to interlocutory review under

the collateral order doctrine. Id. We therefore lack jurisdiction

to consider Robertson’s appeal of the district court’s denial of

his motion for default judgment. 

Accordingly, the “gag order” appeal is dismissed as moot, and

the motion for default judgment appeal is dismissed for lack of

appellate jurisdiction.

Appeals DISMISSED.