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

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of New World Brands, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(i) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: April 15, 2010 | By:                     | /s/ Shehryar Wahid |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------|
|                      | Shehryar Wahid          |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES CURTIS BLAKNEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-54, CA-97-235-3-02) Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 12, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Curtis Blakney, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Curtis Blakney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Blakney’s Motion for Appeal of the Denial of Movant’s § 2255 Motion, deny acertificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Blakney v. United States , Nos. CR94-54; CA-97-235-3-02 (W.D.N.C. filed June 8, 2001; entered June 11, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 1 of 7

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 2 of 7

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 3 of 7

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 4 of 7

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 5 of 7

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 6 of 7

FOIA Requested Record #J-15-0085 (Items 4/5) Released by National Guard Bureau 

Page 7 of 7
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Carlos VARGAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50363.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

Richard Cheng, AUSA, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose Carlos Vargas, FCIT — Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, CA, pro se.

Steve Feldman, Huappauge, NY, for Defendanh-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Carlos Vargas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 156-month sentence for possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, respectively. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Vargas has filed a brief stating that he finds no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our examination of the brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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-K of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2006:



| | (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/ MICHAEL J. HOLMES                    
|Michael J. Holmes Chief Financial Officer

March 16, 2007

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.



54
JeffTelander 

US EPA 

Mail Code 0243-02 

109 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Mr. Telander, 

March 29, 2011 

Enclosed you will find a copy of the Narrative Stack Testing Report in reference to the Information 

Collection Request dated March 12, 2010. 

The ERT is now in the process of being prepared and should be submitted in the near future. 

Sincerely, 

-,;~ 

TimSwaw 

Florim USA 

300 International Blvd. 

Clarksville TN 37040 

931-553-7571 

cc: Howard Gilberg
URBIETA OIL, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. LOURDIE & ARLINE CORP., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 12, 2017

ORDERED that the joint stipulation for dismissal of petition is recognized by the Court, and this petition for writ of prohibition is hereby dismissed.

FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ., concur.
#### Palmer S. CROWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Bureau of Prisons, Defendant—Appellee, and Arthur R. Tolentino; John Does 1-10, Defendants.

No. 02-36060.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 3, 2004.*

Decided May 6, 2004.

Floyd F. Fulle, Esq., Clinton, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James L. Sutherland, Esq., Office of the U.S., Eugene, OR, Defendant-Appellee.

Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*128MEMORANDUM **

Palmer Crowell, a federal prisoner, brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States, Arthur R. Tolentino, and John Does 1-10 for negligent medical treatment following an on-the-job injury in a corrections facility. The claim against Tolentino and the Does was voluntarily dismissed, as it was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss Crowell’s complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. We affirm.

The Prison Industries Fund may be used to compensate “inmates ... for injuries suffered in any industry or in any work activity in connection with the maintenance or operation of the institution in which the inmates are confined.” 18 U.S.C. § 4126(c). “ ‘Section 4126 [of the Prison Industries Fund] is ... the exclusive remedy when a work-related injury is subsequently aggravated by negligence and malpractice on the part of prison officials.’ ” *Vander v. United States,*268 F.3d 661, 663-64 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting *Wooten v. United States, 825*F.2d 1039, 1044 (6th Cir.1987)); *see also Thompson v. United States,*495 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (“Despite the appellant’s allegation that the negligence of the hospital worker occasioned further injuries, for which he seeks damages, he is barred from litigating the matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act since the cause of his original injury was work-related”); 28 C.F.R § 301.301(b) (“Compensation may ... be paid for work-related injuries *or claims alleging improper medical treatment*of a work-related injury” (emphasis added)).

Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the alleged medical malpractice did not constitute a separate and distinct act outside the sole remedy provisions of the Prison Industries Fund. The district court appropriately dismissed Crowell’s FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 1 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 2 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 3 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 4 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 5 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 6 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 7 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 8 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 9 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 10 of 11

Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB     Document 98      Filed 07/28/2005     Page 11 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Case No. 2:18-cv-544

Plaintiff,

Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

v.

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

CITY OF COLUMBUS,

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Defendant.

Defendant the City of Columbus give notice to the Court, the Clerk, and Plaintiff that 

Assistant City Attorney Paul M. Bernhart (0079543) is appearing as co-counsel in this matter. 

Assistant City Attorneys Westley M. Phillips (0077728) and Susan E. Williams (0073375) remains 

Defendants’ co-counsel in this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Paul M. Bernhart

Paul M. Bernhart (0079543)

Westley M. Phillips (0077728)

Susan E. Williams (0073375)

Assistant City Attorneys

CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF LAW

ZACH KLEIN, CITY ATTORNEY

77 North Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 645-7385 / (614) 645-6949 (fax)

pmbernhart@columbus.gov

wmphillips@columbus.gov

sewilliams@columbus.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 02/22/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5364
- 2 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on February 22, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of this Court by using the Court’s CM/ECF System. Copies will be served upon counsel of 

record by, and may be obtained through, the Court’s CM/ECF System.

/s/ Paul M. Bernhart

Paul M. Bernhart (0079543)

Case: 2:18-cv-00544-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 57 Filed: 02/22/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5365
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CRYSTAL BIGLOW,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Case No. 1:18-cv-381

 Judge Timothy S. Black

 Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 15)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 15, 2019, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff filed objections on 

September 9, 2019 (Doc. 17), and Defendant filed a response on September 11, 2019 

(Doc. 19). 

Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken, as they merely consist of Plaintiff’s firsthand account of her medical condition and pain. (Doc. 17). While certainly sympathetic, 

the Plaintiff’s statements do not identify any specific error in the Report and 

Recommendation, and instead register general disagreement with the outcome of her 

case. Accordingly, upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and well-reasoned 

opinion, the Court agrees that the ALJ’s finding of non-disability should be affirmed.
2 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 17) should be and are hereby OVERULED 

and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above: 

1) The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, as that decision is supported

by substantial evidence;

2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is

TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 9/28/2019 /s/ Timothy S. Black 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David E. Kennedy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  |                                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: April 2, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ David E. Kennedy
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | David E. Kennedy                                      
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board
December 3, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VALERIE A. PHILLIPS AKA VALERIE PHILLIPS, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00716-CV V.

EXCELSIOR ON THE PARK, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on August 19, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Valerie A. Phillips aka Valerie Phillips.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      12,934,634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,725,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (167,010)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,753,733
<PP&E>                                       5,574,462
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,546,422)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,095,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,948,210
<BONDS>                                      2,476,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       129,686
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,114,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,095,198
<SALES>                                     21,739,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,739,591
<CGS>                                       18,497,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,549,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,767,916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (167,010)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,514,667)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,549
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,519,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,519,216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.24)



</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

HUNTER ANTHONY BLACK,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2726

LT Case No. 2020-CF-001303-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed November 18, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Osceola County,

Mikaela Nix-Walker, Judge.

Robert David Malove, of The Law 

Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
2

Hunter Anthony Black appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion 

to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). 

Based on the State’s proper confession of error and our independent review, 

we reverse with directions to the trial court to reinstate Black’s initial sentence. 

The trial court violated Black’s rights against double jeopardy when, on its 

own initiative, it enhanced his sentence sixty days after imposing it. See 

Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 2003); Shepard v. State, 940 

So. 2d 545, 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Black’s presence is not required for 

this ministerial act.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Case 1:01-cv-00131-TSH Document 87 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,693,054
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,667,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                   119,651
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,616,399
<PP&E>                                       6,806,070
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,954,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,307,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,188,046
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       126,358
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,253,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,307,208
<SALES>                                      2,567,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,567,633
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,791,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,711,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               119,651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             717,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,935,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,935,725)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6510

OLUDARE OGUNDE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-404-AM)

Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: December 20, 2001

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Oludare Ogunde appeals from the district court’s order denying

Ogunde’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order

and find no reversible error. Ogunde failed to establish any

grounds on which the motion could be granted. In re Burnley, 988

F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion. United States v. Holland, 214

F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 1 of 7  PAGEID #: 2013

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 2 of 7  PAGEID #: 2014

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 3 of 7  PAGEID #: 2015

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 4 of 7  PAGEID #: 2016

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 5 of 7  PAGEID #: 2017

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 6 of 7  PAGEID #: 2018

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 281 Filed: 01/25/23 Page: 7 of 7  PAGEID #: 2019