alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RegulatoryEvaluationDocketNo.FAA-DirectorateIdentifier:-AD{fvoumakechanges10thel'(l/uesinthewblebelow.youmustensurethefowlsupdate{ftheydonot.click(orTab)imoandthenoutofthechangedcell.EstimatedCosts:ActionCostsperProduct(e.g.,aircraft,engine,(e.g.,Inspection,propeller,appliance)Work-hoursLaborPartsCostTotalCostsNumberofTotalCostreplacement)(includecost(labor+u.s.forU.S.FleetDonotincludeonconditioncostshereaccess,testing,(@$85/hparts)Registeredandclose-up)our)ProductsStage1Disk$25,50050FrontDiskShaft$20,00050CompressorSpool$39,00060RearShaft$14,00050RearSeal$5,00050CouplingShaft$21,00050PowerTurbine$42,00050WheelandShaftTheknownnumberofproductsincompliance:TotalCostsofcomplianceforU.S.fleet:$8,715,000Costscoveredunderwarranty(ifknown)$On-ConditionCosts:•ActionWork-hoursLaborcostPartsCostCostperProduct(e.g.,Inspection,(includeaccess,(@$85/hour)replacement)testing,andclose-up)9SpecialconsiderationsforEconomicAnalysis(UsethisfieldtoexplainanythingintheEstimatedCoststablethatwasassumedormightnotbeobvious.Thisfieldcanalsobeusedtoexplainwarrantycosts):ExecutiveOrder12866:CouldtheADbeconsidereda"significantregulatoryaction"?QYES*0*Explanation:DOTRegulatoryPoliciesandProcedures:IstheADsignificant?YES*0*Explanation:RegulatoryFlexibilityAct:WilltheADhaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities?ExplainforeitheraYesorNoanswer.YESOExplanation:IntrastateAviationinAlaska:ThisADcouldaffectintrastateaviationinAlaska.IsitappropriatetoincludespecificrequirementsforGaircraftoperatedinAlaskawhereaviationmightbetheonlymodeoftransportation?YES*0*Explanation:10
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Curtis L. Hage, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof HF Financial Corp.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that 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 controls and 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 internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financing reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies and material 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  |     May 10, 2005                        |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                                                             |
|   |     /s/ Curtis L. Hage                       |   |
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2004:



(1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Odyssey Marine
Exploration, Inc.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John C. Morris     
|John C. Morris         
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 23, 2005         



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and will be retained by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

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

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA 

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

This document relates to: 

Stinson v. Davol, Inc., et al., 

Case No. 2:18-cv-1022

 Case No. 2:18-md-2846

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

MOTIONS IN LIMINE OPINION AND ORDER NO. 60

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and their arguments presented, the Court, in 

accordance with the conclusions made on the record during trial, GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART Defendants’ Motion in Limine (“MIL”) No. 8 (ECF No. 326) and Defendants’ 

MIL No. 9 (ECF No. 330).

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Supplement for his MIL Nos. 26 and 32 (ECF No. 

307). The Court ruled on Plaintiff’s MIL Nos. 26 and 32 in its MIL Order No. 55 the following 

day (ECF No. 311). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/4/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 806 Filed: 01/04/24 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 9022
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2011-N-0742; FDA-2018-N-0180; FDA-2019-N-2854; FDA-2021-N-0515; FDA-2014-N-1960; FDA-2017-D-6069; and FDA-2019-N-3325]
 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, 
                        *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at 
                    *https://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*
                     An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Table 1—List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
Title of collection
OMB control No.
Date approval expiresRegistration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution
0910-0045
12/31/2024Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Data on Tobacco Products and Communications
0910-0810
12/31/2024Premarket Tobacco Product Applications and Recordkeeping Requirements
0910-0879
12/31/2024Postmarketing Adverse Experience Reporting and Recordkeeping
0910-0230
1/31/2025MedWatch: Adverse Event and Product Experience Reporting System (Paper Based)
0910-0291
1/31/2025De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)
0910-0844
1/31/2025Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods
0910-0898
1/31/2025
 Dated: January 20, 2022. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy.


[FR Doc. 2022-01692 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
Breanna BURNS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1513

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 24, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of prohibition, and the response and reply thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ., concur.
Andrew T. SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

         Each of the undersigned officers and directors of Applied Innovation
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby appoints Gerard B.
Moersdorf, Jr. and Curtis A. Loveland as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact,
or either of them, with power to act without the other, as his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, in his name and on his behalf, and in any and all capacities
stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the Company's annual report on Form 10-K, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1997, and any and all amendments thereto, hereby granting unto said
attorneys, and to each of them, full power and authority to do and perform in
the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and all such capacities, every
act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully
as each of the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to each
such attorney full power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying
all that either such attorney or his substitute may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of
Attorney in counterparts if necessary, effective as of March 1998.

DIRECTORS/OFFICERS:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Signature                                               Title
          ---------                                               -----
<S>                                                  <C>
   /s/ Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.                 Chairman, President and Treasurer
-------------------------------                 (Principal Executive Officer)
    Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.


   /s/ William H. Largent                       Senior Vice President - Operations, Chief Financial
-------------------------------                 Officer
    William H. Largent                          (Principal Financial Officer)


   /s/ John M. Spiegel                          Comptroller
-------------------------------                 (Principal Accounting Officer)
    John M. Spiegel

   /s/ James H. Blough
-------------------------------                 Director
    James H. Blough


   /s/ Curtis A. Loveland
-------------------------------                 Director
    Curtis A. Loveland


   /s/ Gerard B. Moersdorf, Sr.
-------------------------------                 Director
    Gerard B. Moersdorf, Sr.


   /s/ Richard W. Oliver
-------------------------------                 Director
    Richard W. Oliver


   /s/ Thomas H. Huseby
-------------------------------                 Director
    Thomas H. Huseby


   /s/ Alexander B. Trevor
-------------------------------                 Director
    Alexander B. Trevor
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WILLIAM SCHMITT, JR., et al., :

:

Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:18-cv-966

:

v. : Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr.

:

OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., : Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Deavers

:

:

Defendants. :

*PROPOSED* AGREED ORDER TO STAY BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS PENDING APPEAL

This matter came before the Court on the Agreed Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pending Appeal (Doc. 48). The Agreed Motion is 

GRANTED. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file their memoranda in support of their motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs 45 days after a mandate is issued by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 41. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 48-1 Filed: 03/20/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 366
Agreed by:

/s/Mark R. Brown (per email authority) /s/Renata Y. Staff

MARK R. BROWN (0081941)* SARAH E. PIERCE (0087799)*

*Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs *Lead Counsel

303 East Broad Street RENATA Y. STAFF (0086922)

Columbus, OH 43215 Assistant Attorneys General

Tel. (614) 236-6590 Constitutional Offices Section

Fax (614) 236-6956 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor

mbrown@law.capital.edu Columbus, Ohio 43215

Tel: 614-466-2872 | Fax: 614-728-7592

MARK G. KAFANTARIS (0080392) sarah.pierce@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

625 City Park Avenue renata.staff@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Columbus, Ohio 43206

(614) 223-1444 Counsel for Defendant

(614) 300-5123(fax) Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose

mark@kafantaris.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs /s/Christopher J. Meduri (per email 

authority)

CHRISTOPHER J. MEDURI (0065072) 

Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

241 South Chestnut Street 

Ravenna, Ohio 44266 

(330) 297-3850 telephone 

(330) 297-4594 facsimile 

cmeduri@portageco.com 

Counsel for Defendant 

Portage County Board of Elections

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 48-1 Filed: 03/20/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 367
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          59,625
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    722,245
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          80,849
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            75,904
<LOANS>                                      2,710,411
<ALLOWANCE>                                     26,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,716,954
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,968,626
<SHORT-TERM>                                   218,493
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            166,262
<LONG-TERM>                                     20,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     343,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,716,954
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                161,201
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               35,364
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,005
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               197,570
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              91,907
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,567
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          101,003
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 274
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 61,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,524
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      28,136
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.21<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.99
<LOANS-NON>                                     23,808
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,905
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                24,114
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,003
<RECOVERIES>                                       947
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               26,458
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            21,963
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,495
<FN>
<F1>EPS PRIMARY TAG REPRESENTS EPS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Securities and Exchange 

Commission,

 Plaintiff

v. Case No. 1:01-cv-116

Stephen G. Donahue, et al.,

Defendants

______________________

ORDER

______________________

The above captioned case shall be administratively closed. The parties are

granted leave to move to reinstate the case at such time in the future as the parties

deem appropriate.

SO ORDERED.

Date: March 29, 2005 s/Sandra S. Beckwith 

Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 106 Filed 03/29/2005 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DONALD M. McNEIL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Submitted November 4, 1977

Decided November 4, 1977.

Before Judges Halpern, Laener and King.

*480
      *Stanley C. Van Ness,*Public Defender of New Jersey, attorney for appellant *(Thomas A. Pavics,*Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

*David Linett,*County Prosecutor of Somerset County, attorney for respondent *(Craig Barbo,*Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

Per Curiam.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the denial of the reduction of bail. Attached hereto is a copy of our disposition of the motion.



*481Leave to appeal is granted pursuant to *R.*2:11-2 and we proceed to the merits.

Bail heretofore fixed at $30,000 is reduced to $15,000, with the 10% cash bond provision in *R.*3:26-4(a) to apply. This 25-year-old defendant is married and the father of three children. He has been a lifelong resident of Plainfield. His only prior conviction as an adult was for breaking and entering with intent to steal, for which offense ho served 18 months. There also appears to be one juvenile delinquency conviction against him. He is confined on a complaint for an alleged robbery of a store while armed with a knife.

In denying a reduction of bail the trial judge said:

> I don’t think $30,000, ten percent, for an armed robbery is excessive bail. If it was $30,000 with no ten percent it might very well be, but not $30,000 and ten percent to apply for a eharge of armed robbery. Mr. McNeil doesn’t really score that well. He’s got about 6 points. The motion is denied.

It is abundantly clear that bail was fixed with the predetermined intent that the 10% cash amount was the motivating force, not the $30,000 actually fixed. This approach is contrary to the Supreme Court’s intent in adopting *R.*3:26-4(a). The rule contemplates bail to be fixed in such reasonable amount as will ensure defendant’s appearance at all stages of the proceedings until final determination of the matter. The 10% cash deposit program, as it is now operative, is not to be utilized in lieu of reasonable bail. Rather it is to empower the trial judge, in counties where the program has been approved by the assignment judge, to permit the posting of 10% “of the amount of bail fixed”. This would avoid the necessity of paying for a surety bond and enable a defendant to get back his deposit on compliance with the terms of the recognizance.
IN RE ANITA E. BONO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, DATED DECEMBER 22, 2005

Olivia Bono, as Beneficiary of the Anita E. Bono Revocable Living Trust dated December 22, 2005, by and through her Attorney-in-Fact, Vincent J. Bono; and Michael Bohman, as Beneficiary of the Anita E. Bono Revocable Living Trust dated December 22, 2005, by and through his Guardian of the Property, Vincent F. Bohman, Appellants, v. Patricia Carroll, as Trustee of the Anita E. Bono Revocable Living Trust dated December 22, 2005; Shriners Hospitals for Children (in Philadelphia); The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Tenet Health System; St. Christopher's Hospital for Children; and Temple University Children's Medical Center, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-1680

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

May 26, 2020

Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 

100 East Fifth Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202-3988

Re: William T. Schmitt, et al.

v. Frank LaRose, Ohio Secretary of State

No. 19-974

(Your No. 19-3196)

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 75 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 627