alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

CHRISTOPHER FOSTER,

Petitioner, : Case No. 1:18-cv-259

- vs - District Judge Susan J. Dlott

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

RON ERDOS, Warden,

 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility,

:

Respondent.

ORDER TO TRANSFER TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Christopher Foster, is before the 

Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Judgment (ECF No. 24).

Foster recites that his Motion is brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and cites case law 

interpreting that Rule. Id. at PageID 601, However, this Court’s Order ending its jurisdiction over 

the case was entered July 20, 2018, when the case was ordered transferred to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upon a finding that it was Foster’s third habeas corpus 

application directed to the same state court judgment (ECF No. 17, PageID 546). 

Upon transfer the circuit court agreed with this Court’s finding that the application was 

second or successive and denied Foster authorization to proceed. In re: Christopher Foster, Case 

No. 18-3733 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018)(unreported; copy at ECF No. 18).

Then on January 22, 2019, Foster moved for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P.

60(b)(1) and (6)(ECF No. 19). This Court again transferred the case to the Sixth Circuit as a 
2

second or successive habeas petition (ECF No. 21). The Sixth Circuit dismissed the transferred 

case for failure to comply with Sixth Circuit Rule 22. In re: Christopher Foster, Case No. 19-

3087 (6th Cir. Mar. 18, 2019)(unreported; copy at ECF No. 23).

If Foster’s instant Motion is read just as he has written it, it would be denied as untimely. 

Assuming a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) is the functional equivalent of a judgment

for finality purposes for Rule 59(e) purposes, the motion is grossly untimely; the deadline for such 

motions is twenty-eight days from the judgment and the original transfer order was entered July 

20, 2018. 

However, because Foster is a pro se litigant, he is entitled to have his pleadings liberally 

construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 

2001). Whatever caption Foster has put on the document, his prayer for relief asks that “this 

second habeas petition should be reviewed and granted upon this respectful request pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. Section 2253(a) and Section 2254(d)(1)-(2). See White v. Ryan, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 

18921, ** 57 [9th Cir. 2018].” (ECF No. 24, PageID 615). 

Because Foster has not been granted permission to file a second or successive habeas 

petition, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide his application. the Clerk is accordingly 

ordered to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

March 10, 2020.

s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7848

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD E. WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (2:01-cr-00103; 2:03-2193)

Submitted: May 23, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit

Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald E. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Lou Haines, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia; Michael Lee

Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Samuel David Marsh,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald E. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The notice of

appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration

of the appeal period. Because Walker is incarcerated, the notice

is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to

prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P.

4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not

reveal when Walker gave the notice of appeal to prison officials

for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited

purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information

from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

consideration.

REMANDED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 79 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.79
                                        Agreed to March 10, 2022        

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2471, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction:
     Amend the title so as to read: ``Making consolidated 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for 
providing emergency assistance for the situation in Ukraine, and for 
other purposes.''.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
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, 2016
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.



|               |  |  |  |                                                         |  |                    
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|               |  |  |  | Southwest Bank,
Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|               |  |  | 
|August 4, 2016 |  |  |  | By                                                      |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|               |  |  |  |                                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|               |  |  |  |                                                         |  | Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000881283
<NAME> DESTRON FEARING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (137)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,227
<PP&E>                                           3,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,418)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,980
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,025)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,264
<SALES>                                          4,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,062
<CGS>                                            2,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    239
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                239
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       239
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv-560
Plaintiff, Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
VS.
JULIE CURRAN, REPORT AND
Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for default judgment against
defendant Julie Curran. (Doc. 11). Defendant has not responded to the motion.

The defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend this action, and default was entered
by the Clerk of Court on April 8, 2019. (Doc. 10). Based upon a showing that defendant has
been in default for failing to appear, that defendant is not an infant or an incompetent person, and
that defendant is not in the military service of the United States (see Doc. 11, Aff.), and upon the
application of plaintiff for judgment against the defendant in the sum of $57,746.18, plaintiff's
motion for default judgment should be granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that (1) plaintiff's motion for default judgment be
GRANTED in favor of plaintiff United States of America against defendant Julie Curran in the
amount of $57,746.18 ($25,232.58 principal and $32,513.60 post judgment interest at 8.250%)
through April 3, 2019; (2) plaintiff be awarded additional interest to accrue from the date of
judgment at the legal interest rate in effect on the date of judgment, computed daily and

compounded annually until paid in full; and (3) plaintiff be awarded costs of this action.

Date: J Leap 9 . ;
Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv-560
Plaintiff, Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
JULIE CURRAN,
Defendant.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS afier 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).
#### People v Twilley,

No. 91121;

Court of Appeals No. 133949.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

 

I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc., certifythat: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite ScreenCompany, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 financialinformation 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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’sboard of directors: 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 9, 2004
Order filed, August 17, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00494-CR

____________

MARTIN ANGEL RUIZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1447488

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 02, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cynthia Lee, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 1 of 12  PAGEID #: 894

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 2 of 12  PAGEID #: 895

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 3 of 12  PAGEID #: 896

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 4 of 12  PAGEID #: 897

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 5 of 12  PAGEID #: 898

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 6 of 12  PAGEID #: 899

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 7 of 12  PAGEID #: 900

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 8 of 12  PAGEID #: 901

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 9 of 12  PAGEID #: 902

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 10 of 12  PAGEID #: 903

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 11 of 12  PAGEID #: 904

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/19/18 Page: 12 of 12  PAGEID #: 905
|                  |   | P.A.M. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.             |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   |                                             |   |
| Dated: March 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Daniel H. Cushman                            |   |
|                  |   | DANIEL H. CUSHMAN                                |   |
|                  |   | President and Chief Executive Officer            |   |
|                  |   | (principal executive officer)                    |   |
|                  |   |                                             |   |
| Dated: March 15, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Larry J. Goddard                             |   |
|                  |   | LARRY J. GODDARD                                 |   |
|                  |   | Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, |   |
|                  |   | Secretary and Treasurer                          |   |
|                  |   | (principal accounting and financial officer)     |   |
|                  |   |                                             |   |
Exhibit 12.1




Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


and Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges


and Preferred Share Dividends




The following table sets forth our ratios of earnings to fixed charges and earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends for the periods indicated.  The ratio of earnings to fixed charges was computed by dividing earnings by our fixed charges. The ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends was computed by dividing earnings by our combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends.  For purposes of calculating these ratios, earnings consist of income from continuing operations before noncontrolling interests plus fixed charges.  Fixed charges consist of interest charges on all indebtedness, whether expensed or capitalized, the interest component of rental expense and the amortization of debt discounts and issue costs, whether expensed or capitalized.  Preferred share dividends consist of dividends on our Series A preferred shares.




Fiscal Year ended April 30,2011
2010
2009
2008
2007Consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges
1.07x
1.07x
1.14x
1.22x
1.24xConsolidated ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred share dividends
1.03x
1.04x
1.10x
1.18x
1.20x
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     3rd Quarter 2000 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,889
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                   550
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         113,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                 49,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 71,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,249
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     69,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   71,897
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,144
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (145)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,401
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,401
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

AARON WARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MARK J. STUCKE, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-263

District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

NOTICE

The discovery phase of this case has ended. No discovery motions or other matters

referred to the undersigned Judicial Officer remain pending. The case is presently set for 

further proceedings, including trial, before United States District Judge Thomas M. Rose. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to note in the record that:

1. Referral of this case to the undersigned Judicial Officer has expired; and

2. No motions or other matters in this case remain pending before the 

undersigned Judicial Officer.

June 9, 2021 s/Sharon L. Ovington

Sharon L. Ovington

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:18-cv-00263-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 06/09/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 306
#### Kowalewski v Grund Masonry,

No. 90941;

Court of Appeals No. 132088. Reconsideration denied November 25,1991.