alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
v. McDonald , Slip Opinion No. 202 4
- Ohio

- 527 .]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 , of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2024
- O HIO - 527 T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELL EE , v. M C D ONALD , A PPELL ANT . [ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. McDonald , Slip Opinion No. 202 4
- Ohio

- 527 .] Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. (No. 2023

- 0954 ―Submitted February 6 , 2024 ―Decided February 14 , 202 4 .)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County,

No. C

- 220328 , 2023

- Ohio

- 1987

.

_________________ {¶ 1} Th is cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. K ENNEDY , C.J., and F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and B RUNNER , JJ. S TEWART , J., dissents and would order briefing on proposition of law No. II. D ETERS , J., not participating.

_________________ Melissa A. Powers , Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula Adams , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appell ee
.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Raymond T. Faller , Hamilton County Public Defender , and Sarah E. Nelson , Assistant Public Defender, for appellant , Robert McDonald

.

_________________
Andre WITHERSPOON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-3303 17-3304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 14, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0682. EDWARD TYRONE RIDLEY v. DAVID ATKINS.

On October 6, 2021, the trial court entered an order dismissing an “Expedited

EmergencyPetition for a Writ of Mandamus” filed by prisoner EdwardTyrone Ridley

against David Atkins. Ridley then filed both an application for a discretionary appeal

and a notice of appeal from the order. We denied Ridley’s discretionary application

on the merits. See Case No. A22D0113 (Nov. 12, 2021). This case is the direct

appeal, which Ridley filed on October 19, 2021.

ThisCourt’s denial of Ridley’s discretionary application constitutes a decision

on the merits. See Elrod v. Sunflower Meadows Dev., LLC, 322 Ga. App. 666, 670

(4) (745 SE2d 846) (2013) (“when this Court examines a request for a discretionary

appeal, it acts in an error-correcting mode such that a denial of the application is on

the merits, and the order denying the application is res judicata with respect to the

substance of the requested review”) (punctuation omitted). Accordingly, Ridley is

barred from challenging the October 6 order by way of this direct appeal. See

Northwest Social &Civic Club v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 (583 SE2d 858) (2003);

Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007). This direct appeal

is therefore DISMISSED. 

April 27, 2022
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/27/2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Sherrod JONES, a/k/a Birdie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7509

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Antonio Sherrod Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Sherrod Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).' When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*256We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion and supplemental motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel. We grant Jones’ motion to exceed the page length limitations on his motion for a certifícate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2879-012]

                    a.                     *Project Name and Number:*                     Bolton Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2879-012.                

                    b.                     *Applicant:*                     Green Mountain Power (GMP).                

                    c.                     *Date and Time of Meeting:*                     February 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EST.                

                    d.                     *FERC Contact:*                     Michael Tust, (202) 502-6522,                     *michael.tust@ferc.gov.*

                    e.                     *Purpose of Meeting:*                     Commission staff will hold a teleconference with staff from GMP and the Vermont State Historic Preservation Office to discuss the status of pending revisions to GMP's Historic Properties Management Plan and a projected schedule for finalizing and signing a Programmatic Agreement.                

                    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to attend the meeting. Please call or email Michael Tust at (202) 502-6522 or                     *michael.tust@ferc.gov*                     by February 18, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. EST, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.                

Dated: February 7, 2022.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-02954 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 31.1
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dean Polnerow, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K
        of Switchboard Incorporated; and

     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.



Dated: April 9, 2004                   By: /s/ Dean Polnerow
                                           -----------------
                                           Dean Polnerow
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
                                           (principal executive officer)
Project: Vessels Distributional Impact Analysis

Filename Inputs Outputs Purpose/Comments

*Distribution Analysis Inputs 

NEW infile.csv

N/A N/A Costs by vessel class.

*Distribution Analysis Inputs 

NEW NAICSnum.csv

N/A N/A Number of vessels by revenue size category.

*Distribution Analysis Inputs 

NEW NAICSthresh.csv

N/A N/A Revenue thresholds data.

*Distribution Analysis Inputs 

NEW NAICSWEIGHTS.csv

N/A N/A Number of vessels by NAICS and vessel type.

**DistAnal11samp21NOV_v3.sa

s

*Distribution Analysis Inputs NEW 

infile.csv

*Distribution Analysis Inputs NEW 

NAICSnum.csv

*Distribution Analysis Inputs NEW 

NAICSthresh.csv

*Distribution Analysis Inputs NEW 

NAICSWEIGHTS.csv

***DAO11_Highthresholds_DF.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_DP.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_FF.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_IF.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_IP.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_MC.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_NS.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_OT.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_PH.xls

***DAO11_Highthresholds_SS.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_DF.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_DP.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_FF.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_IF.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_IP.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_MC.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_NS.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_OT.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_PH.xls

***DAO11_Lowthresholds_SS.xls

***Dist11_High_DF.xls

***Dist11_High_DP.xls

***Dist11_High_FF.xls

***Dist11_High_IF.xls

***Dist11_High_IP.xls

***Dist11_High_MC.xls

***Dist11_High_NS.xls

***Dist11_High_OT.xls

***Dist11_High_PH.xls

***Dist11_High_SS.xls

The program calculates the distribution of firm cost 

impacts by sector and revenue bracket assuming 11 

possible vessel costs per vessel class. The 

percentage of firms with impacts exceeding 1% and 

3% of their revenue is also calculated. 

Note: These are the abbreviations used for the NAICS:

DF 483111/483113

FF 11411

DP 483112/483114

IF 483211

IP 483212

SS 487210

PH 488310

MC 488320

NS 488330

OT 488390
Project: Vessels Distributional Impact Analysis

Filename Inputs Outputs Purpose/Comments

***Dist11_Low_DF.xls

***Dist11_Low_DP.xls

***Dist11_Low_FF.xls

***Dist11_Low_IF.xls

***Dist11_Low_IP.xls

***Dist11_Low_MC.xls

***Dist11_Low_NS.xls

***Dist11_Low_OT.xls

***Dist11_Low_PH.xls

***Dist11_Low_SS.xls

******Distribution Analysis 

Output_03.21.13_v2.xlsx

Outputs from 

**DistAnal11samp21NOV_v3.sas re: 

the percentage of firms with impacts

exceeding 1% and 3% of their revenue 

To organize the percentage and number of firms 

with impacts exceeding 1% and 3% of their revenue 

for the NAICS with more than one vessel class.
exh10151poddaramendedoff






                                                                                                                                                                                                PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL    Date:  October 2, 2018                          To:    Reema Poddar    From:  Oliver Ratzesberger    RE:    Compensation Alignment                                                                                                         I am delighted to inform you that effective immediately we will recognition your position as the Executive  Vice President, Product Development.   Your compensation will be adjusted as outlined below:     Title                              Executive Vice President, Product Development   Base Pay                           $460,000 effective October 1, 2018   Target Incentive Opportunity       100% of your eligible earnings for 2018   Special Equity Award               Total RSU Value of $1,000,000    Severance Plan Participation       Executive Severance Plan – Level I      Target Incentive Opportunity  You will continue to be eligible to participate in Teradata’s Annual Incentive Plan (AIP).  Teradata’s AIP is  a  performance-based  annual  incentive  program  based  on  financial  and  strategic  performance  results  achieved by Teradata, as well as your individual performance against your business objectives.  As such,  AIP awards are subject to discretionary adjustment based on performance as outlined in the guidelines.   You have an AIP target incentive opportunity  of 100% of  your  eligible earnings. Your 2018 AIP  will be  calculated at this incentive target for the full year, based on your eligible earnings during the performance  period.  The AIP calculation and payment process is fully outlined in the AIP guidelines.     Special Equity Award  You have been awarded an equity award with a total value of $1,000,000 to be granted at the expiration  the current trading blackout period (November 5, 2018).  This award will vest over a 3-year graded period.   The equity award is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan  and the applicable award agreements approved in connection with your equity award.     Your  equity  award  will  be  issued  under  the  terms  of  Teradata’s  Stock  Incentive  Plan,  which  is  administered  by  Fidelity  Investments.  The  specific  terms  and  conditions  relating  to  the  award  will  be  outlined in the applicable award agreement contained on Fidelity’s website.      Severance Plan Participation  We will be removing you from the Key Employee Severance Plan and you will have the opportunity to join  the Executive Severance Plan – Level I.  Further documentation as to your participation in the Executive  Severance Plan and the plan overview will come from Human Resources in the next couple of weeks.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin LEWIS, II, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31093 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 6, 2017

Gregory Martin Kennedy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, Plaintiff-Appellee

John Harvey Craft, Esq., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Melvin Lewis, II, appeals from his 30 convictions for mail fraud, in violation of 18 *331U.S.C. § 1341. He argues that the evidence produced at the bench trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite .specific intent to defraud because there was no evidence showing that he was aware that the theories underlying his letters demanding payment of money damages were mistaken or wrongful.

In reviewing his claim, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and defer to reasonable inferences drawn by the district court. *United States v. Esparza,*678 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2012). To show an intent to defraud, the Government “must prove that the defendant contemplated or intended some harm to the property rights of the victim.” *United States v. Leonard,*61 F.3d 1181, 1187 (5th Cir. 1995). The requisite intent to defraud is also established if the defendant “act[ed] knowingly with the specific intent to deceive for the purpose of causing pecuniary loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to himself.” *United States v. Blocker,*104 F.3d 720, 732 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Our examination of the record supports the district court’s specific finding that Lewis had the requisite specific intent to .defraud the victims in this case. Lewis’s letters demanded payment on baseless legal theories accompanied with threats of escalating payments, liens, and, in some instances, formal criminal charges. Lewis followed through in many instances by actually filing liens against many of the victims’ personal residences. He continued in this course of action even after a Louisiana state court ruled against him, prohibited him from contacting many of the victims in this case, and ordered him to remove all liens he filed against those victims. His claim that he lacked the requisite intent because he was mistaken as to the validity of his underlying legal theories lacks evi-dentiary support. *See United States v. Mikolajczyk,*137 F.3d 237, 240 (5th Cir. 1998). Instead, the surrounding facts and circumstances support the district court’s finding of intent. *See United States v. Aubrey,*878 F.2d 825, 827 (5th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *331the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Lou TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C.; Deutsche Bank, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-11295 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 30, 2017

Lou Tyler, Pro Se

Thomas F. Loose, Esq., Arthur Elex Anthony, Esq., Robert Thompson Mowrey, Locke Lord, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lou Tyler moves for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*(“IFP”) in her appeal of the dismissal of her civil action against Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., and Deutsche Bank. Tyler’s motion is a challenge to the district court’s determination that her appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Before this court, Tyler reasserts her claims that foreclosure on her property would be improper because the defendants are barred from enforcing their interest by the statute of limitations and that they have engaged in a variety of wrongdoings, including harassment, unfair and misleading representations, deceptive practices, illegal attempts to foreclose, non-validation of debt, and deliberate mishandling of her mortgage and financial documents. By merely reasserting her claims, Tyler fails to address the district court’s certification that her appeal was not taken in good faith and the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. *See Baugh;*117 F.3d at 202. In particular, she does not factually or legally challenge the district court’s determination that Tyler’s civil action is barred by res judicata.

*Pro se*briefs are afforded liberal construction. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error by the district court, it is the same as though the appellant had not appealed that issue. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty.*
      *425
      *Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Tyler has failed to challenge the certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith and the reasons for such a certification, she has abandoned the issues in the appeal. *Id.*

The appeal lacks arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Tyler’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Cedric BOYD v. STATE

CR-16-0221

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Richard S. Childs, Appellant, *v.*Robert Moses et al., Respondents.

Argued April 8, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*829
      *Samuel D. Smoleff*for appellant.

*Jeremiah*M. *Evarts, Assistant Corporation Counsel (William S. Lehwohl*of counsel), for respondents.

*Townsend*Scudder, *Louis C. Wills*and *Henry J. Davenport*for Chamber of Commerce of Borough of Queens and Brooklyn Real Estate Board; Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Brooklyn Association, *amici curiae.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. (See 290 N. Y. 925.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 635 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permanently include 

certain HCPCS codes as telehealth services under such title, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Mr. ROSENDALE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permanently include certain HCPCS codes as telehealth services under such title, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Expanding Access to 

5 Mental Health Services Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 635 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT INCLUSION OF CERTAIN HCPCS 

2 CODES AS TELEHEALTH SERVICES UNDER 

3 MEDICARE. 

4 Section 1834(m)(4)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(4)(F)) is amended— 

6 (1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘the HCPCS 

7 codes specified in clause (iii),’’ before ‘‘, and’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 clause: 

10 ‘‘(iii) SPECIFIED HCPCS CODE.—For 

11 purposes of clause (i), beginning April 1, 

12 2023, an HCPCS code specified in this 

13 clause is— 

14 ‘‘(I) 90875, 96125, 96170, 

15 96171, 97151, 97152, 97153, 97154, 

16 97155, 97156, 97157, and 97158; 

17 and 

18 ‘‘(II) 96127, 96130, 96131, 

19 96132, 96133, 96136, 96137, 96138, 

20 96139, and 96158. 

21 With respect to telehealth services identi22 fied by HCPCS codes in subclause (II), the 

23 Secretary shall waive the requirements of 

24 paragraph (1) and section 410.78(a)(3) of 

25 title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or 

26 any successor regulation), relating to the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 635 IH

1 use of interactive telecommunications sys2 tems to furnish telehealth services, to the 

3 extent such provisions require the use of 

4 video technology, to allow for the fur5 nishing of evaluation and management 

6 services, behavioral health counseling and 

7 educational services, and other services de8 termined appropriate by the Secretary by a 

9 qualified provider using audio-only tech10 nology, as determined by the Secretary 

11 based on whether it is clinically appro12 priate to furnish such services using audio13 only technology and whether an in-person 

14 initial visit is required prior to the fur15 nishing of such service using such tech16 nology.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS