alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

myCUmortgage, LLC, 3 CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00091-WHR

Plaintiff, q (Judge Walter H. Rice)

(Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington)
Vv.

CENLAR FSB, : ORDER GRANTING A STAY OF

THE CASE SCHEDULE
Defendant.

For good cause, the Joint Motion for Stay of the Case Schedule is granted. The
Court requires the parties to advise the Court of the outcome of the mediation as successful or

unsuccessful within 3 business days of the mediation's conclusion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(Se awe TNGes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Aethlon Medical, Inc., Inc.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
A. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities 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/ JAMES A. JOYCE
                         ------------------
                         JAMES A. JOYCE
                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         NOVEMBER 19, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000811031
<NAME>                         GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP I-F

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                            254,500
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     250,188
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  504,688
<PP&E>                          8,044,032
<DEPRECIATION>                  6,933,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,990,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             102,857
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                      1,765,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,990,904
<SALES>                         1,292,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,769,025
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     825,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   943,291
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               943,291
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      943,291
<EPS-BASIC>                         53.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
MASSBANK Corp.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-11949 and No. 33-82110) on Form S-8 of MASSBANK Corp. of our report dated
January 8, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of MASSBANK Corp.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report is
incorporated by reference into the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K
of MASSBANK Corp.


                                                        /s/ KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 2002
P.S. and D.S. v. B.P. and J.P.

2160036

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAXI GROUP, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,669
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,593
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,964)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,669
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    73
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,591)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,591)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
Daryn Dean RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Scott ROBERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-312

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Thomas J. Lukashow, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee 

  for the Cross Timbers Royalty Trust: 

 

We are aware that XTO Energy Inc. has incorporated by reference in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-55784 and 333-91460 on Form S-8, Cross Timbers Royalty Trust’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, which includes ourreport dated October 15, 2004, covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certifiedby our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

October 19, 2004
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ramsey Joel Hinojosa, * From the 106th District Court

of Dawson County,

Trial Court No. 14-7401.

Vs. No. 11-15-00302-CR * April 14, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,731,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  625,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (234,601)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,444,830
<PP&E>                                       7,085,482
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,711,065)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,748,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,148,070
<BONDS>                                     27,548,876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,768,250
<COMMON>                                       134,380
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,652,820)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,748,443
<SALES>                                      1,439,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,439,406
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,341,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,694,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (234,601)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,169,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,597,267)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,597,267)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 94 Filed: 04/02/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 561
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 85 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify 

the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited 

liability companies, and other corporate entities established by the laws 

of any State, the United States, or any foreign state. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2022 

Mr. MORELLE submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States 

to regulate corporations, limited liability companies, and 

other corporate entities established by the laws of any 

State, the United States, or any foreign state. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 85 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The rights enumerated in this Constitu5 tion and other rights retained by the people shall be the 

6 rights of natural persons. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. As used in this Constitution, the terms 

8 ‘people’, ‘person’, and ‘citizen’ shall not include a corpora9 tion, a limited liability company, or any other corporate 

10 entity established by the laws of any State, the United 

11 States, or any foreign state. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 3. A corporate entity described in section 

13 2 shall be subject to such regulation as the people, through 

14 representatives in Congress and State representatives, 

15 may determine reasonable, consistent with the powers of 

16 Congress and the States under this Constitution. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 4. Nothing in this article shall be con18 strued to limit the rights enumerated in this Constitution 

19 and other rights retained by the people, which are 

20 unalienable.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1018 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the differential 

wage payment credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2021 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself and Mr. WENSTRUP) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the differential wage payment credit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reservist Pay Equity 

5 Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR EM7 PLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS 

8 OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. 

9 (a) INCREASE IN DIFFERENTIAL WAGE PAYMENT

10 CREDIT.—Section 45P(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1018 IH

1 of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘20 percent’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘50 percent’’. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 45P(b) 

4 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(4) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—In the 

7 case of any taxable year beginning after 2021, the 

8 $20,000 amount in paragraph (1) shall be increased 

9 by an amount equal to— 

10 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

11 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter12 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

13 year in which the taxable year begins, by sub14 stituting ‘calendar year 2020’ for ‘calendar year 

15 1996’ in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. 

16 If the amount as increased under the preceding sen17 tence is not a multiple of $100, such amount shall 

18 be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to payments made after December 

21 31, 2020. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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  SpatiaLight,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned Officers 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,  to  their
knowledge, 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/ ROBERT A. OLINS
                                          Robert A. Olins
                                          Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ KIM TSUCHIMOTO
                                          Kim Tsuchimoto
                                          Controller and Principal Financial and
                                            Accounting Officer

August 9, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 11.1


                             CHEMTRAK INCORPORATED

                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three months ended                   Six months ended
                                                                June 30,                              June 30,
                                                    --------------------------------    ----------------------------------
                                                         1997               1996              1997               1996
                                                    --------------     --------------    -------------     ---------------
<S>                                                 <C>                <C>               <C>               <C>

Weighted average common share outstanding              12,855,0000         9,773,000         12,470,000          9,743,000
                                                    ==============     =============     ==============    ================

Net income (loss)                                   $   (1,654,000)    $  (2,789,000)    $   (2,949,000)    $    (4,285,000)
                                                    ==============     =============     ==============    ================

Net income (loss) per share                         $        (0.13)    $       (0.29)    $        (0.24)    $        (0.44)
                                                    ==============     =============     ==============    ================      

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Steve Snyder-HIII, etal.,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action 2:18-cv-736

V. Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Deavers

The Ohio State University,

Defendant.

ORDER

The Court held a status conference in this case on January 17, 2019.

Counsel for all parties appeared and participated in the conference.

As stated at the conference, this case remains at a standstill pending

mediation and further order of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that

Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery, ECF No. 25, and Motion to Dismiss, ECF

No. 34, continue to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending mediation.

The parties are DIRECTED to confer and file joint recommendations by

January 31, 2019, as to the model of the mediation and individuals who might

serve as mediators.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

HTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ELIZABETH P. QEAVERVI^ASISTRAT'E JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 42 Filed: 01/17/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 695
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No s . 07 - 14 - 00076 - CR , 07 - 14 - 00078 - CR,

07 - 14 - 00079 - CR LAMONT D. SPENCER, A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 3

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No s . 1299134D , 1304136D, 1306654D , Honorable Robb Catalano, Presiding 

### June 27 , 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant Lamont D. Spencer appeals his felony conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, and two charges of felony indecency with a child by contact. App ellant pled guilty to each charge under an open plea. The offenses involved three different victims. The trial court assessed punishment at forty - five years’ confinement in prison for the aggravated sexual assault charge and twenty years’ confinement in prison for each charge of indecency with a child . The sentences run concurrently
. Appellant’s2

court - appoi nted appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders 1 brief. We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the trial court. Counsel expresses the opinion in the motion that the appeals are without merit and frivolous
. The brief reviews proceedings in the trial court through the sentencing hearing and substantiates counsel’s conclusion. Correspondence from counsel to appellant indicates counsel provided appellant a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief and advised appellant of his right to file a response. By letter, this court also notified appellan t of his opportunity to submit a response but appellant did not file a response. In conformity with the standards of the United States Supreme Court, we do not rule on a motion to withdraw before independently examining the record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.
— San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If we determine the appeal has arguable merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointme nt of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have reviewed the entire record to determine whether any arguable ground supports an appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledso e v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Finding no arguable ground supporting a claim of reversible error, we agree with counsel that the appeal is

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).3

frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’ s motion to with draw 2 and affirm the trial court’ s jud gment s .
James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish.

2 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1668

___________________________

Adrianne L. Laramore

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Quality Residence, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: July 20, 2022

Filed: July 25, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal in a civil action, Minnesota resident Adrianne

Laramore appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion to compel, and the
district court’s1

 orders denying her motions for a preliminary injunction and

temporary restraining order (TRO). 

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

conclude that we lack jurisdiction as to both the denial of the motion to compel, see

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions

of district courts); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927-28 (8th Cir. 2000)

(pretrial discovery orders are not immediately appealable, because they can be

effectively reviewed after final judgment); and the denial of a TRO, see Hamm v.

Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to

review denials of TROs). We further conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)

(appellate courts have jurisdiction from interlocutory orders refusing injunctions);

Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (reviewing denial of preliminary

injunctive relief for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as to the denial of the motion to compel

and the denial of a TRO; and we affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, see

8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

-2-