alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Sky One Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Yan-qing, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:  March 14, 2011
 
 By:
/s/ Liu Yan-qingName:  Liu Yan-qingTitle:  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 680 V

Filed: June 11, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

LISA GLADSTONE

, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Mindy M. Roth

, Glen Rock, NJ , for petitioner.

Justine E. Daigneault

, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On June 11

, 2014 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 requirement, petitioner a sserts that she did not

i ncur any out

- of

- pocket expenses in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted her request for

attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. P etitioner requests reimbursement for attor neys’ fees and

costs in the amount of $1 2 ,4 41 .6 1

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearl y

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits with in the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 1 2 ,4 41 .6 1 , repre senting

reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a chec k made

payable jointly to petitioner and B ritcher, Leone & Roth, LLC in the amount of $ 1 2 ,4 41 .6 1

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to R CFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
[1]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE LEIGH WHITAKER, 

et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUDGE JOSEPH W. KIRBY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL COMPLAINT

Case No. 1:18-cv-00540-WOB

JUDGE WILLIAM O. BERTELSMAN

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

The legal issues and relief sought in this case are narrow, but the harm to Plaintiffs’ 

children is significant. Because injunctive relief is unavailable an expedited trial schedule 

is essential to remedy that harm. See Doc. 20 & Doc. 20-1. 

As demonstrated by Plaintiffs’ proposed declaratory judgment order (Doc. 38), 

Plaintiffs do not seek to overturn Judge Kirby’s decision in the name-change action filed 

by the Whitakers. Instead, Plaintiffs seek equal treatment of the name-change petitions 

they filed, or will file, on behalf of their transgender children in a manner that is consistent 

in all respects with Defendant’s treatment of the name-change applications of nontransgender minors. Judge Kirby already conceded that he treats name-change petitions 

filed on behalf of transgender minors “differently” than name-change petitions for nontransgender minors. Doc. 30, PAGEID: 236, 245. The proposed declaratory judgment 

addresses Judge Kirby’s conduct that Plaintiffs allege violates the Equal Protection Clause

of the United States Constitution.

Given the limited scope of this case, Plaintiffs are confident that the case can be 

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/12/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 304
[2]

completed on an expedited basis. Plaintiffs concur with Judge Kirby’s representation that 

the parties should be able to reach agreement on issues the parties anticipate may arise, 

avoiding delays in the trial schedule set by the Court. Counsel for Plaintiffs look forward 

to discussing this further with opposing counsel, as well as any other potential issues, as 

part of a Rule 26(f) conference. 

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set an expedited 

trial schedule to avoid further harm to Plaintiffs’ transgender children.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Joshua R Langdon

Joshua R. Langdon, Ohio Bar #90956

Josh Langdon, LLC

810 Sycamore Street, Fl. 2

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Phone: (513) 246-1400

Fax: (513) 263-9000

E-mail: josh@joshlangdon.com

Shannon Minter*

Christopher Stoll*

Asaf Orr*

National Center for Lesbian Rights

870 Market Street, Suite 370

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (415) 392-6257

Fax: (415) 392-8442

sminter@nclrights.org

cstoll@nclrights.org

aorr@nclrights.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

* pro hac vice pending

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/12/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 305
[3]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua Langdon, Esq., do hereby certify that on this 12th day of October, 2018, I 

caused true and correct copies of the foregoing to be filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, 

causing service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Joshua R Langdon

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 39 Filed: 10/12/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 306
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-74

William D. Merckle 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 27) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 3 and 10 of the indictment,

and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The court will

defer the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until

the sentencing hearing.

Date: September 21, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
Willy MOISE, DOC #R14911, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2402

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Ellie WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Lucien MCDONALD, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2181

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

Salvatore DiGiacomo of Law Office of Frank DiGiacomo, Stuart, for appellant.

Kristian A. Bie of Law Office of Fetterman & Associates, North Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Damoorgian and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901



### DEC 1 8 2009
Stephen B. Etsitty, Executive Director NavajoNation Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 339 Window Rock, Arizona 86515
Re: Extension Consultation on Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for Navajo Generating Station, EPA DocketNo. EPA-R09-0AR-2009-0598 (74 Fed. Reg. 44313; August 28, 2009)

## 2~**DearM~~ty:** EPA met withthe tribes ofITCA on December 15, 2009, to discuss our ANPR on the BART determination for Navajo Generating Station to hear directly the concerns oftribes aboutthis issue. We understand that representatives ofthe NavajoNation were unable to attend this meeting. Therefore, we are writing you to inform you that in this meeting, EPA agreed to extendthe commentperiod for all tribes potentially affected by our future BART determination from December 28, 2009, until March 1, 2010, to provide more time for government-togovernment consultation. Please note that only tribes will be eligible to submit comments during this informal extension.
We appreciate your interest in ouraction and look forward to consulting with you throughout our rulemaking process. Please contact me at 520-498-0118 ifyou have additional questions. Sincerely,

ColleenMcKaughan Associate Director, Air Division

Printed on Recycled Paper
#### People v Ernesto Jones,

No. 91052;

Court of Appeals No. 129288.
Darrell BENJAMIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4838

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 2, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

As the judgment and sentence sought to be appealed in the petition for belated appeal is the subject of review in appeal number 2D17-4818, the petition is dismissed, and the case shall proceed under case number 2D17-4818.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
# C ou r t

of A p p e al s

of t h e S t at e of

G e or gi a

A

T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e r e b y p a s s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r :

A 1 7 A 1 3 5 2

. W

O O D v

. T

H E S T A T E

.

T h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a n d a m e n d e d n o t i

c e o f a p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e s p e c i

f i e d t h a t

t h e c l e r k s h o u l d “ t r a n s m i t t h e r e c o r d i

n i t s e n t i r e t y i n c l u d i n g t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r ’ s

t r a n s c r i p t o f a

n y a n d a l l t r i a l o r m o t i

o n s h e a r i n g s

. ” N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g

, t h e a p p e l l a t e

r e c o r d r e c e i

v e d b y t h i s C o u r t i s i n c o m p l e t e

. N o t a b l y

, t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s a r e n o t

i n c l u d e d : D e f e n d a n t ’ s E x h i b i t N u m b e r 1 f r o m t h e J u n e 2 3

, 2 0 1 6 M o t i

o n f o r N e w T r i

a l

h e a r i n g ( p u r p o r t e d l y a v i d e o r e c o r d i

n g ) ; a n d S t a t e ’ s E x h i b i t 1 f r o m t h e j u r y t r i a l

( p u r p o r t e d l y a n a u d i o r e c o r d i n g )

. S e e C o u

r t o f A p p e a l s R u l e 1 8 ( b )

. W e n o t e t

h a t i t

i s t h e b u r d e n o f t h e a p p e a l i n g p a r t y t o e n s u r e t h a t a c o m p l e t e r e c o r d i s t

r a n s m i t t e d t o

t h i s C o u r t o n a p p e a l

. I d

.

A c o m p l e t e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d i s n e c e s s a

r y f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s o n

a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, i t i s h e r e b y o r d e r e d t

h a t t h i s m a t t e r b e R E M A N D E D t o t h e t r i a l

c o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n t o p r e p a

r e a c o m p l e t e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d w i

t h a l l i t e m s e n t e r e d i n t o

e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l a n d d u r i n g h e a r i n g s

, i n c l u d i n g r e c o r d i n g s

. I t i s f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t

h a t t h e

t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l t h e n r e

- t r a n s m i t t h i s m a t t e r t o t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r r e

- d o c k e t i

n g August 09, 2017a

n d d i s p o s i

t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l

. U p o n r e

- d o c k e t i

n g

, b r i e f i n g b y t h e p a r t i e s s h o u l d

p r o c e e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s R u l e 2 3

.

C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’s O f f i c e

, At l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i

s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w

r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/09/2017
Randy THACKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882974
<NAME> CHESTNUT REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      54,055,887
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,055,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,055,887
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,544
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  332,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (206,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (206,610)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
John GAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4935

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10945 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KELLY WOODERSON BURKETT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 62

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kelly Wooderson Burkett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Burkett argues that , because she was not involved in importation, the district court erred by imposing a two

- level importation enhancement. She acknowledges that this argument is for eclosed by United States v. Foulks , 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10945 Document: 00513942562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2017No. 15

- 10945

2 She also argues that the district court erred by increasing her offense level by two level s, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 , because she attempted to obstruct or impede justice. T he di strict court stated specifically that even if it erred by applying the enhancement, it would have imposed the same sentence. Accordingly, any error in apply ing the enhancement is harmless. See United States v. Gutierrez

- Mendez , 752 F.3d 418, 429

- 30 (5th Cir. 2014) ; see also United States v. Shepherd, ___ F.3d ___, 2 017 WL 543219, * 2 (5th Cir. Feb. 9,
2017 )

. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-10945 Document: 00513942562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2017
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10120]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Document Number AMS-FV-10-0063]

Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Importer 
Associations and Assessment Computation

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces an updated computation for assessments 
received by importer associations under the Hass Avocado Promotion, 
Research, and Information Order (Order)(7 CFR part 1219). The Order is 
authorized under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information 
Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7801-7813). The Order covers fresh domestic and 
imported Hass avocados and is administered by the Hass Avocado Board 
(Board). Under the program, assessments are paid by producers and 
importers and used for programs designed to increase the consumption of 
Hass avocados in the United States. A state association receives 85 
percent of the assessment paid by all producers in the State of 
California and uses these funds to conduct state-of-origin promotions. 
Importer associations receive 85 percent of the assessments paid by 
their members and use these funds to conduct country-of-origin 
promotions. This notice announces that assessments from all Hass 
avocado importers who import Hass avocados from a country represented 
by an importer association will be included in the 85 percent 
assessment computation. For those importers of Hass avocados whose 
assessments were not previously included in the 85 percent calculation, 
such importers may have their assessments not included in the 
computation upon notice to the Board. Information regarding the updated 
computation is available from the Agricultural Marketing Service at 
http://www.ams.usda.gov/FVPromotion. The updated computation will 
become effective 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Veronica Douglass, Marketing 
Specialist, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable 
Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 0632-S, Stop 
0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (888) 720-9917; facsimile 
(202) 205-2800; or electronic mail: Veronica.Douglass@ams.usda.gov.

    Dated: April 20, 2011.
Ellen King,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-10120 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
NAOMI RUTH STURGILL, '
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.: 1:18-cv-0607
)
* ) Judge Black
)
ANDREW SAUL, .
Commissioner of the Social Security ; Magistrate Judge Bowmen.
Administration, )
Defendant.

ORDER
This cause coming before the Court on the motion and stipulation of the parties, due
notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised:

The Court grants the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and the Commissioner shall pay
Plaintiff $2,337.00 in attorney fees and expenses, and $400 in costs, for a total amount of
$2,737.00 (two thousand seven hundred thirty-seven dollars). The award of attorney fees,
expenses, and costs will fully satisfy and settle any and all of Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. §
2412 that may be payable in this case. Prior to Plaintiff filing an EAJA petition, the parties
jointly reached a resolution to settle EAJA fees in this case. The parties’ Stipulation represents a
compromise on disputed positions and is not intended to set precedent for, or a representation of,
any specific hourly rate or total number of hours.

Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that
Plaintiff owes the United States, pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130
S.Ct. 2521 (2010). After the Court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, the Defendant agrees to direct that the award


be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney pursuant to an EAJA assignment duly signed by Plaintiff.

Date: ai fh) Entered: froghnw 2, Chek

hoartaz\
EX-10(r)






Exhibit 10(r)




Regent Communications, Inc.

Schedule of Director Compensation




     Each non-management director of Regent Communications, Inc. currently receives an annual cash
retainer of $12,000, paid in equal quarterly installments, for his service as director, as well as
reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him in connection with his duties
as a director, including attending meetings of the Board and any committees thereof. The Chairman
of the Board receives an additional annual cash retainer of $15,000 paid in equal quarterly
installments for the additional services required of that position. The chair of the Audit
Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an
additional annual cash retainer of $10,000, $5,000 and $5,000, respectively, for the additional
services required of the Committee chair. Directors that serve on a committee receive $2,000 for
each on-site committee meeting that they attend in person and $1,000 for each on-site committee
meeting they attend via telephone. Directors that serve on a committee receive $1,000 for each
telephonic committee meeting that they attend via telephone. Directors who are employees of the
Company receive no additional fees for serving as a director.



     The Regent Communications, Inc. 2006 Directors Equity Compensation Plan was adopted January
25, 2006 and approved by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders
on May 10, 2006. On that date, each non-management director currently serving on the Company’s
Board of Directors was awarded 5,000 nonvested shares of Regent common stock. At the Company’s
Annual Meeting of Stockholders on May 9, 2007, each non-management director serving on the
Company’s Board of Directors on that date was awarded a grant of 5,000 nonvested shares of Regent
common stock. On October 24, 2007, two newly-elected non-management directors were each awarded
2,500 nonvested shares under the plan. At the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders on June 4,
2008, each non-management director serving on the Company’s Board of Directors on that date was
awarded a grant of 10,000 nonvested shares of Regent common stock. The nonvested shares generally
vest ratably over a four-year period, commencing on the first anniversary of the date of grant.