alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

 : 

__________________________________ : Case No. _________________ 

 : Judge: ___________________ 

 v. : Corporate Disclosure Statement 

 : 

__________________________________ : 

 : 

 

Pursuant to the Corporate Disclosure Statement provisions in Local Civil Rule 7.1.1: Any nongovernmental corporate party to a proceeding must file a Corporate Affiliations/Financial Interest 

statement identifying all of its parent, subsidiary and other affiliate corporations and listing any publicly 

held company that “controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a publicly controlled 

corporation.” A party must file the statement upon filing a complaint, answer, motion, response or other 

pleadings in this Court, whichever occurs first. The obligation to disclose any changes will be continuing 

throughout the pendency of this case. 

 In Compliance with those provisions, this Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of: 

 _______________________________________________________________________. 

1. Is said party a parent, subsidiary or other affiliate of a publicly owned corporations? 

 ___ YES ___ NO 

If the answer is YES, list below the identity of the parent, subsidiary or other affiliate corporation 

and the relationship between it and the named party: 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the case, that has a financial interest in the 

outcome? 

 ___ YES ___ NO 

 If the answer is YES, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest. 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________ ________________________ 

 Signature of Counsel Date 

“Certificate of Service” 

COUNSEL ARE REMINDED OF THEIR CONTINUING OBLIGATION 

TO UPDATE AND SUPPLEMENT THIS STATEMENT

Case: 2:18-cv-00442-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/25/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 202
Dan FUDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5024

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEVEN SEIFUDDIN IBN

- HAMEED,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1 2

- 1 9 61 (J E B)

MICHAEL MADDREN , et al. ,
Defendant s .

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Steven Seifuddin Ibn

- Hameed has filed this incomprehensible action
against a series of Pennsylvania judges, police officers, and state officials. The Court has
previously granted motion s to dismiss by the non

- judicial Defendants. See ECF No. 15. The
judges have now filed their ow n Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 17. On February 14, 2013,

the Court advised Plaintiff that he must respond by March 7 or face possible dismissal. See ECF

No. 1 8

. All that Plaintiff has filed are two documents that have nothing to do with the Motion

. The first is entitled “Notice of International Diplomatic Status” and begins, “Peace. Peace, Peace
be unto all men and women in this world. The Divine Spirit, Living beneficiary and heir to the
Divine Estate lives at peace with all men and women.” See EC F No. 19 at 1. The second is a
UCC Financing Statement from the Delaware Department of State. See ECF No. 20. The Court,

therefore, will trea t the Motion as conceded under LCvR 7(b).

Even if Plaintiff had not conceded the Motion, the Court sees several reasons to grant it,
including judicial immunity. To the extent his allegations against the judges are intelligible at

all , they concern acts taken within their judicial duties. “Few doctrines were more solidly

established at common l aw than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts2 committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray , 386 U.S. 547, 553

- 54 (1967). One
purpose of the doctrine is to “protect[] judicial independence by insulating judges from ve xatious
actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants,” Forrester v. White , 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988)

(citation omitted)

– precisely the case here. As a result, “judges of courts of superior or general
jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their j udicial acts, even when such acts are in excess
of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v.
Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 355

- 56 (1978) (citation and footnote omitted). Such immunity covers
even suits claiming a deprivation of constitutional rights. See Apton v. Wilson , 506 F.2d 83, 90
(D.C. Cir. 1974) (“The common law immunity of judges is fully applicable in suits under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of constitutional rights.”) (citation omitted).

As the judicial Defendants are immune from suit, a contemporaneous Order will issue
granting the Motion to Dismiss.

/s/ **James E. Boasberg** JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: March 11 , 2013
No . 1 3-3 47 2

Fo x v. Kop lik UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SECOND CI RCUI T SUMMAR

Y ORDER RULING S BY SUM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HA VE PRECEDENT IAL EFFECT. CITAT ION TO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ON O R AFTER JA NUARY 1 , 2 00 7, IS PERM ITT ED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APP ELL ATE PROCEDURE 32 .1 AND THIS CO URT’S LOCAL RULE 32 .1. 1. WHEN CITING

A SUM M ARY O RDER IN A DO CUM ENT FILE D WITH THIS COUR T, A PAR TY M UST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APP ENDIX OR AN ELE CTRONIC DATABA SE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUM M ARY O RDER”). A P ARTY CITING A SUM M ARY O RDER M UST SERVE A CO PY OF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRESENTE D B Y COU NSEL. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurg ood Marsha ll United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City

of Ne w York on the 21 day of May , two thousand fourte en. st Present: ROSEMARY S. P OOL ER,

REENA RAGGI , RI CHARD C. W ESL EY,

Circuit Judges
.

_____________________________________________________ I N RE: PERRY H. KOPL I K & SONS, I NC. Debtor
. MI CHAEL

S. FOX, AS L I TI GATI ON TRUSTEE OF PERRY H. KOPL I K & SONS, I NC., Plaintif

f-Appellee

, -v- 13-3472-c v
MI CHAEL

KOPL I K, MARC N. SI EGEL , as Persona l Represe ntative of the Esta te of Alvin Siege l, Defendants-A ppellants
.

_____________________________________________________ Appea ringfor Appe llants: Michae l L . Cook, Schulte Roth & Z abel, L L C. (Nanc y L
. Kourland, Sanf

ord P. Rosen, Rosen & A ssociates P.C., on the brief ) Ne w York, N .Y. Appea ringfor Appe llee: Christopher R. Be lmonte, Satterlee Stephe ns Bur ke & Bur ke L LP, New Y ork, N.Y.Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Castel, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AND DECREED that the judg ment of said District Court be a nd it hereby

is AF F IRMED
. Michae l Koplik and Marc N. Sieg el, as the pe rsonal represe ntative of the Estate of Alvin Siege l, appea l from the August 14, 2013 memorandum and order of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Ca stel, J .), imposing pe rsonal liability on Koplik and Alvin Sieg el for c erta in brea ches of fiduciar y duty and fr audulent conve yance s. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and spec ification of issues for r eview. In this bankruptcy

case , the lower

court’s f indings of f

act a re r eviewe d for c lear

err or, and its conclusions of law a re r eviewe d de novo. SeeFe d. R. Civ. P . 52(a) ; cf. Forsdick v

. Turgeon , 812 F.2d 801, 801 ( 2d Cir. 1987). The district cour t, assisted by

the bankr uptcy court’s extensive proposed finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, a bly set forth a

car eful a nd thorough analy sis of the claims and the la w. We aff

irm for substantially

the same r easons a s set forth by district court. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the district cour t hereby is AFF I RMED. FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk

2
#### Mohammad HOSSAIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70920

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Mohammad Hossain, Pro Se

Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mohammad Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence support the agency’s conclusion that Hossain’s experiences during the 2015 attack did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1181, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (lifetime of harassment, threats, and single beating did not rise to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Hossain failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh because he did not establish it was objectively reasonable. *See Halim v. Holder,*590 F.3d *617971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner “failed to make a compelling showing of the requisite objective component of a well-founded fear of persecution”); *Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident[.]”). Thus, Hossain’s asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Hossain failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, Hossain’s CAT .claim fails because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Bangladesh. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Lazay Cartuz MASON v. STATE

CR-16-0644

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON DC

FRIENDS OF THE EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT, INC., ANALAR CORPORATION, ASSOCIATED AIRCRAFT GROUP, INC., HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC., HELIFLITE SHARES LLC, LIBERTY HELICOPTERS, INC., and SHORELINE AVIATION, INC. Complainants,


### v. EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT, a division ofthe TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON Respondent.

ORDER Docket No.: 16-15-02

On May 6, 2015, counsel for Complainant, Friends ofthe East Hampton Airport, Inc., eta! filed anunopposed motion seeking an extension oftime until June 8, 2015, for which to file their responsive Reply to the Respondent's Answer and its opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Counsel further advised that the Respondent does not oppose this request for an extension oftime. Part 16 is intendedto expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. [See, Rules of Practicefor Federally-AssistedAirportEnforcement Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an extension oftime may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. See 14 CFR § 16.ll(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Complainants Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond is granted. Complainants may file their Rebuttal on or before June 8, 2015.

Randall S. Fiertz Date Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management AnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that onMay 

# :2/ ,2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to: Counsel for Respondent Elizabeth Vail Town Attorney TownofEastHampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 EVail@EHamptonNY.Gov W. Eric Pilsk Catherine van Heuven Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 epilsk@kaplankirsch.com cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com Counsel for Complainant Leonard D. Kirsch McBreen & Kopko Attorneys for Complainants 500 North Broadway Jericho, NewYork 11753 lkirsch@mklawnyc.com

Hand-Deliveredto: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100



# t;foq~JL-;;;;JMS&b e nne Torgerson Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
Demond DUMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3251

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Michael D. Capellas, the
Chief Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Capellas                    
|                        |  |  |  | Michael D. Capellas Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



|(1) | The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2006



/s/ Fred B. ParksFred B. ParksChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Todd E. PaulsonTodd E. PaulsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick P. Frier, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Rick P. Frier                                                                                                          
|Rick P. Frier Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer) May 9, 2007
Willie BROOKS v. STATE

CR-16-0262

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joseph K. MAGRINI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0264

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999

<CASH>                                            32,888
<SECURITIES>                                      18,449
<RECEIVABLES>                                     37,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  92,140
<PP&E>                                            23,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                    11,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   703,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             50,501
<BONDS>                                           76,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             456
<OTHER-SE>                                       241,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     703,015
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 137,128
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 102,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 7,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   23,943
<INCOME-TAX>                                      10,525
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               13,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      13,418
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .28



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of NCI Building Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and3.
    
    The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NCI Building Systems, Inc.
  /s/ Norman C. ChambersNorman C. ChambersChairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Jorge DELGADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2550

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.