alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First National Moving and Storage Website 

Screenshot

1

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 231-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1457
Public Moving Services Website Screenshot

2

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 231-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 1458
Presidential Moving Services Website Screenshot

3

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 231-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 1459
4

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 231-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 1460
5

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 231-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 1461
6

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 231-3 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 1462
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE  SHEET  AT  SEPTEMBER  30,  2000   (UNAUDITED)   AND  THE
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 2000
(UNAUDITED)  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>               1,000

<S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                          65,373
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  194,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    49,188
<INVENTORY>                                                     18,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               275,729
<PP&E>                                                         553,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 385,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 644,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          173,594
<BONDS>                                                        351,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                                     118,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   118,935
<SALES>                                                        755,880
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               755,880
<CGS>                                                          208,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  208,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                25,785
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              31,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 71,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    30,166
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             41,658
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    41,658
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0.77


</TABLE>
Defendant - Appellee 

BEFORE: GUY, MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges. 

 Upon consideration of motion to stay mandate, 

 It is ORDERED that the mandate be stayed to allow The Ohio State University time to file a 

petition for a writ of certiorari, and thereafter until the Supreme Court disposes of the case, but 

shall promptly issue if the petition is not filed within ninety days from the date of final judgment 

by this court. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Issued: December 22, 2022 

___________________________________

Case No. 21-3981/21-3991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ORDER

STEVE SNYDER-HILL; RONALD MCDANIEL; DAVID MULVIN; WILLIAM BROWN; 

KURT HUNTSINGER; WILLIAM RIEFFER; STEVE HATCH; KELLY REED; MELVIN 

ROBINSON; DOUGLAS WELLS; JAMES KHALIL; JERROLD L. SOLOMON; JOSEPH 

BECHTEL; MICHAEL MURPHY; JOHN DAVID FALER; MATT MCCOY; GARY AVIS; 

ROBERT SCHRINER; MICHAEL MONTGOMERY; JOHN DOES, 1-22, 25, 27, 29-37, 39-47, 

49, 52, 54, 56-60, 62-64, and 66-77 

Plaintiffs - Appellants 

v. 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 171 Filed: 12/22/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 2887
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 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Senior Vice PresidentFinance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    RICHARD B. HARE               
|Richard B. Hare                      
|Senior Vice PresidentFinance,       
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
|                                     
|March 17, 2008
Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated January 26, 2009



 Exhibit 10.47 
 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”) is entered into as of January 26, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly known as Nuvelo, Inc. (“Assignee”), and ARCA
biopharma Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation, formerly know as ARCA biopharma, Inc. (“Assignor”). Assignor and Assignee are each individually referred to herein as a “Party,” and collectively referred to as the
“Parties.” 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume, all Assignor’s rights and obligations under that certain Amended and Restated Employment and Retention Agreement (the
“Employment Agreement”) dated as of July 7, 2008, by and between Assignor and Richard Brewer. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
 1. Assignment and Assumption.

 1.1 Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee, and Assignee hereby assumes, all Assignor’s right, title, interest,
powers, privileges, remedies, duties, liabilities and obligations under the Employment Agreement. As of the Effective Date, Assignee shall become entitled to all such right, title, interest, powers, privileges and remedies of Assignor and subject to
all such duties, liabilities and obligations of Assignor, in each case as if Assignee were the original party to the Employment Agreement. 
 1.2 As of the Effective Date, the term “Company,” as used in the Employment Agreement, shall refer to Assignee, and Assignee will be bound by and perform Assignor’s obligations under the Employment Agreement. 
 2. Miscellaneous. 
 2.1 This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Colorado, without regard to conflicts of law provisions. 
 2.2. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall not be altered, amended, modified or otherwise changed by any oral communications
of any kind or character, or by any written communication, unless signed by a duly authorized representative of each of the Parties. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	ARCA BIOPHARMA, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff

	Name:	 	Christopher D. Ozeroff
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President of Business Development and General Counsel
	
	ARCA BIOPHARMA COLORADO, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff

	Name:	 	Christopher D. Ozeroff
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President of Business Development and General Counsel


 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 
  

	
	 /s/ Richard Brewer

	Richard Brewer
Alkylphenols and Ethoxy lates Research Council Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Preven tion and Toxics (OPPT)

September 14, 2012

10:00 – 11:00 am EDT

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Resear ch Council (APERC) Attendees

Barbara S. LOSEY Deputy Director Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council

Dr. William WOLFRAM Director-Global Regulatory Affairs SI Group, Inc.

Dr. Severin MUELLER Director- Product Toxicology & Regul ations Europe & Middle East SI Group – Switzerland GmbH

Ben RADTKE The Dow Chemical Company

Global Product Stewardshi p Specialist, Surfactants

Dr. Katie COADY Toxicology Consulting Specialist The Dow Chemical Company

Dr. Charles A. STAPLES Assessment Technologies, Inc. Environmental Consultant to Alkylpheno ls & Ethoxylates Research Council

Dr. Thomas G. OSIMITZ Science Strategies LLC Toxicology and Human Health Consultant to Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research

CouncilRubber Manufacturers Associ ation (RMA) Attendees

Sarah E. AMICK

Environmental Counsel

Rubber Manufacturers Association

Tracey NORBERG

Senior Vice President

Rubber Manufacturers Association
#### Ex parte Hornsby.

4899

311 S. W. 2d 529

Opinion delivered March 31, 1958.

*Nance*■& *Nance*by *Genii B. Nance, Jr.,*for petitioner.

*Bmce Bennett, Atty. General*and *Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. General,*for the State of Arkansas.

Minor W. Millwee, Associate Justice.

This is a petition for writ of *habeas corpus*filed in this court on November 27, 1957, by Hubert Earl Hornsby claiming he was being detained unlawfully in the Crittenden County jail because of his inability to pay a fine and costs of $219.25 adjudged against him in the Municipal Court of West Memphis, Arkansas, on September 16, 1957, upon his plea of *nolo contendere*
      *1*
      **to a charge of driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We appointed the Honorable Cecil B. Nance Jr. to represent the indigent petitioner.

*976At the outset we are confronted with the proposition that an application for *habeas corpus*cannot he made to perform the function of an appeal, or writ of error, in correcting errors or irregularities at the trial. We have repeatedly held that if a petitioner for *habeas corpus*is in custody under process regular on its face, nothing will he inquired into save the jurisdiction of the court whence the process came. *Ex parte Brandon,*49 Ark. 143, 4 S. W. 452; *Ex parte Foote,*70 Ark. 12, 65 S. W. 706; *State ex rel. Attorney General*v. *Auten, Judge,*211 Ark. 703, 202 S. W. 2d 763.

Petitioner does allege that the municipal court wag without jurisdiction to try him for a violation of state law. This allegation is without merit under Ark. Stats., Sec. 22-709, which provides that municipal courts shall have jurisdiction concurrent with the circuit court over misdemeanors committed within the county. Petitioner’s remedy as to other alleged irregularities was hy an appeal to circuit court which he failed to prosecute within 30 days as required hy Ark. Stats., Sec. 26-1307. *Messina*v. *State,*211 Ark. 1060, 204 S. W. 2d 547; *Whiteley*v. *Pickens,*225 Ark. 845, 296 S. W. 2d 4. The petition is accordingly denied.

The plea of *nolo contendere*was added to the statute [Ark. Stats. Sec. 43-1220] by Act 141 of 1953. Excellent articles on the history, nature and implications of the plea appear in 51 Yale Law Journal 1255 and 7 Ark. Law Review 337.
Timothy NOVLAN, Appellant, v. Elizabeth NOVLAN n/k/a Elizabeth Stemler, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3502

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
2020 MAY 30 PM 1:37 2020 MAY 30 PM 1:37

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 146 Filed: 03/30/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 892
Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 146 Filed: 03/30/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 893
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

GREGORY G. WHITE, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-289 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

NORMAN ROBINSON, Warden, 

 London Correctional Institution 

 : 

 Respondent. 

RECOMMITTAL ORDER 

 This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 14) to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Report and Recommendations again recommending transfer to 

the Sixth Circuit (ECF No. 11). 

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be 

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions 

to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that 

analysis. 

October 22, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 _____________________________ 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
#### People v Haveman,

No. 88363;

*Leave to Appeal Denied September 24, 1991:*

Court of Appeals No. 116280.
Gregory Armee SCONIERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3524

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/
RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
CERTIFICATION I, Robert C. McBride, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Ascential Software Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue 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.
    
    [Intentionally omitted since the information to which this paragraph relates is not included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A];4.
    
    [Intentionally omitted since the information to which this paragraph relates is not included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A]; and5.
    
    [Intentionally omitted since the information to which this paragraph relates is
not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A]. /s/ Robert C. McBrideRobert C. McBrideChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
 Date: April 22, 2005
ROBERT INGHAM LAW, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SIERRA INTERPRETERS & TRANSLATIONS, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1739

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated September 1, 2017.

LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ., concur.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF
                        PAINEWEBBER/GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME
                             LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I-F

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

       The  undersigned,  desiring  to amend and restate  its  certificate  of
limited   partnership   pursuant  to  the  Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited
Partnership  Act, as amended,  54 O.S. Supp.  1988, Sec.  301-365 (the "Act"),
does hereby state:

       1.    The name of the  limited  partnership  is  "PaineWebber/  Geodyne
Energy Income Limited Partnership I-F."

       2.    The  date  of  filing  the   original   certificate   of  limited
partnership is September 10, 1986.

       3. (a) The address of the office of the limited partnership, which is the
same address where the records of the limited partnership are kept, is 320 South
Boston, The Mezzanine, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3708.

             (b)   The name and  address  of the agent for  service of process
are  Geodyne  Properties,  Inc.,  320  South  Boston,  The  Mezzanine,  Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74103--3708.

       4.    The name and  business  address  of the  general  partner  are as
follows:

                   Geodyne Properties, Inc.
                   320 South Boston, The Mezzanine
                   Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3708

       5.    The  latest  date  upon  which  the  limited  partnership  is  to
dissolve is December 31, 1999.

       6.    The limited  partnership  hereby elects to become  subject to all
of the provisions of the Act.

DATED March 9, 1989.

                                        Geodyne Properties, Inc.
                                        General Partner of PaineWebber/
                                        Geodyne Energy Income Limited
                                        Partnership I-F

                                        By:  /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                          ---------------------------
                                        Title:  Executive Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Eugene Scalia,
Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:18¢v590

“ Judge Susan J. Dott

Mica Contracting, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).
ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed
the pleadings and filed with this Court on December 10, 2019 a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 40). Subsequently, the defendants filed objections to such Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 42). Plaintiff's filed a response to the objections (Doc. 45). Defendants filed a motion
requesting leave to file a reply brief in support of their objections (Doc. 46) and the plainitff’s
filed a response to the motion (Doc. 47).

Upon review of the Court, the motion to file reply brief in support of their objections
(Doc. 46) is DENIED.

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 such Recommendation should be adopted.


Accordingly, the defendants House, J&E, and Thompson’s motion for leave to file a
third-party complaint is DENIED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

a Susan J. uss 4,
United States District Court
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  S OMJAI M URRELL , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 01-6558



#  D ARLENE B EST , Undercover Officer; U NNAMED P OLICE O FFICER ,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-01-209-2) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: August 21, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Somjai Murrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Somjai Murrell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. The district court construed Murrell’s action as one for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) after finding Murrell’saction, which alleges he was arrested without probable cause, challenged the fact or duration of his incarceration. On appeal, however, Murrell argues that the incident that forms the basis of his § 1983 complaint is unconnected to his current incarceration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find the record before us is inadequate to evaluate the propriety of the district court’s action. Accordingly, we remand Murrell’s claim to the district court for further proceedings to ascertain if in fact Murrell’s allegations in this complaint amount to an attack on a conviction for which he was incarcerated. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further proceedings. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED 2 M URRELL v. B EST
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 36 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 36

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission relating to ``Procedural Requirements and 
        Resubmission Thresholds Under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

  Mr. San Nicolas submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission relating to ``Procedural Requirements and 
        Resubmission Thresholds Under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to 
``Procedural Requirements and Resubmission Thresholds Under Exchange 
Act Rule 14a-8'' (85 Fed. Reg. 70240; published November 4, 2020), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```