alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as State v. Folino, 2021-Ohio-1451.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

MICHAEL FOLINO, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2020-12-132 

D E C I S I O N 

4/26/2021 

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2020-09-1247 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee 

Engel & Martin, LLC, Mary K. Martin, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 101, Mason, Ohio 45040, for 

appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Michael Folino, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of 

proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon 

the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 
Butler CA2020-12-132 

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous. 

PIPER, P.J., M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JEROME WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-507 WL

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Jerome Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended habeas corpus petition (DE 8-1) along

with a motion (DE 8) asking for leave to file it. However, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a)(1), he may amend “once as a matter of course” without permission from the court

because the original petition had not yet been served on the respondent. Therefore the motion will

be denied as moot and the clerk will be directed to separately docket the amended petition. 

In his petition, Williams is challenging the prison disciplinary hearing (ISP 15-08-003) held

on August 10, 2015, where he was found guilty of Assault/Battery in violation of A-102 and

sanctioned with the loss of 180 days earned credit time and demoted to credit class 3 by the

Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) at the Indiana State Prison. Williams admits that he stabbed a

fellow inmate several times, but argues that he was denied due process because he was precluded

from arguing that he acted in self-defense. However, “[p]risons may discipline inmates who engage

in violence even if the inmate did so to protect himself.” Keller v. Cross, 603 F. App’x 488, 489 (7th

Cir. 2015). “[I]nmates do not have a constitutional right to raise self-defense as a defense in the

context of prison disciplinary proceedings.” Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 848 (7th Cir. 2011). Thus,

he was not denied a fair hearing or due process and he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
For these reasons, the motion to amend (DE 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk is

DIRECTED to separately docket the amended habeas corpus petition (DE 8-1) which is DENIED

pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 6, 2016 s/William C. Lee 

William C. Lee, Judge

United States District Court

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE USDC Northern Indiana

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Gerald Huntington

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:15−cv−00383−JTM−CAN

Senior Judge James T Moody

National Credit Adjusters, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT

 Default is hereby entered against defendant(s)

National Credit Adjusters LLC ,

for failure to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 55(a).

Date: January 20, 2016 Sincerely,

ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK

By: s/ Kimberly S Pflueger 

 Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00383-JD-MGG document 7 filed 01/20/16 page 1 of 1
Pioquinto Larios SANTACRUZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-6807.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33380-33381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13332]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Task Force 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-

[[Page 33381]]

463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: National Artificial Intelligence Research 
Resource Task Force (84629).
    Date and Time: July 28, 2021; 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Virtual 
meeting attendance only; to attend the virtual meeting, please send 
your request for the virtual meeting link to the following email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99a949c8a8a9894b9978a9fd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="26454b435555474b6648554008414950">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Brenda Williams, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 703-292-8900; 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#accedbc5c0c0c5cdc1ecc2dfca82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2745504e4b4b4e464a6749544109404851">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Purpose of Meeting: The Task Force shall investigate the 
feasibility and advisability of establishing and sustaining a National 
Artificial Intelligence Research Resource; and propose a roadmap 
detailing how such resource should be established and sustained.
    Agenda: In this inaugural meeting, the Task Force will discuss its 
charter and goals; key characteristics for the National Artificial 
Intelligence Research Resource; the results of pilot efforts to enhance 
access to cloud computing resources for federally-funded researchers; 
and review the work plan going forward.

    Dated: June 21.2021.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-13332 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---



EXHIBIT 8.01

LIST OF CURRENT SUBSIDIARIES

Name of Subsidiary
    Place of Incorporation
    Principal Activity
    Ownership3537137 Canada Inc.
    Canada
    Holding Company. Wholly-owned
      subsidiary of the Company.
    100%Pebble Services Inc.
    Nevada, USA
    Management and services company.
      Wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
    100%Northern Dynasty Partnership
    Alaska, USA
    Holds 99.9% of the Pebble
      Limited Partnership and 100% of Pebble Mines Corp.
    100% (indirect)Pebble Limited Partnership
    Alaska, USA
    Holding Company and Exploration of the Pebble
      Project.
    100% (indirect)Pebble Mines Corp.
    Delaware, USA
    General Partner. Holds 0.1% of
      Pebble Limited Partnership.
    100% (indirect)Pebble West Claims Corporation
    Alaska, USA
    Holding Company. Subsidiary of Pebble Limited
      Partnership.
    100% (indirect)Pebble East Claims Corporation
    Alaska, USA
    Holding Company. Subsidiary of
      Pebble Limited Partnership.
    100% (indirect)U5 Resources Inc.
    Nevada, USA
    Holding Company. Wholly-owned subsidiary of
      the Company.
    100%Cannon Point Resources Ltd.
    British Columbia, Canada
    Not active. Wholly-owned
      subsidiary of the Company.
    100%MGL Subco Ltd.
    British Columbia, Canada
    Not active. Wholly-owned subsidiary of the
      Company.
    100%Delta Minerals Inc.
    British Columbia, Canada
    Not active. Wholly-owned
      subsidiary of MGL Subco Ltd.
    100% (indirect)Imperial Gold Corporation
    British Columbia, Canada
    Not active. Wholly-owned subsidiary of Delta
      Minerals Inc.
    100% (indirect)Yuma Gold Inc.
    Nevada, USA
    Not active. Wholly-owned
      subsidiary of Imperial Gold Corporation.
    100% (indirect)


---
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26710-26711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12175]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5208-2]


Inspection and Maintenance Flexibility Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period to the proposed rule 
published on April 28, 1995 (60 FR 20934). EPA is extending the comment 
period to June 1, 1995.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later 
than June 1, 1995. A public hearing is scheduled for May 17, 1995 and 
will be held at Weber's Inn at 3050 Jackson Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 
48103, from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate 
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-95-08. It is requested that a 
duplicate copy be submitted to Eugene J. Tierney at the Office of 
Mobile Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. The docket is located at the 
Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW., Washington, DC 
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and 
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Tierney, Telephone (313) 
668-4456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EPA announced its intent to amend the I/M Program Requirements in 
December 1994 and held stakeholders' meetings on January 24, 1995 and 
January 31, 1995. The proposal creates a second, less stringent 
enhanced I/M performance standard that could be [[Page 26711]] used in 
areas that can demonstrate an ability to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act 
deadlines for Reasonable Further Progress and attainment while 
implementing an I/M program that falls below the originally promulgated 
enhanced I/M performance standard. The proposed action would also 
revise the high enhanced I/M performance standard to include a visual 
inspection of the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve on all 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks from model years 1968 to 
1971, inclusive, and of the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve on 
all light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks from model years 1972 
through 1983, inclusive. The proposal also solicits public comment on 
whether or not EPA should include revised regulatory language in its 
final rulemaking which change the population cutoff for basic I/M from 
50,000 persons to 200,000 persons. Lastly, the proposal would make 
clarifying amendments to the I/M requirements for areas undergoing 
redesignation.

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-12175 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Roland I. OJEGBA, PlaintiffAppellant, v. Tim MURPHY, Kim Cole, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-14115.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 26, 2006.

Clifford Harold Hardwick, Hardwick & Associates, Roswell, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eddie Snelling, Jr., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DUBINA, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim arising from the traffic stop of plaintiff Roland I. Ojegba by Sergeant Tim Murphy of the Kennesaw State University Police Department. Ojegba alleges that several officers, including Sergeant Murphy, pepper sprayed, beat, and choked him while effectuating his arrest. He further asserts racial discrimination claims, alleging police harassment and intimidation. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds for the excessive force claim, and summary judgment on the racial discrimination claim for lack of evidence. Ojegba makes no argument on appeal as to the racial discrimination claim.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment up until the time Ojegba was subdued by the officers under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486 n. 6, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (courts should reject allegations in a civil suit that contradict plaintiffs plea of guilty to criminal charges). The fact that in this case the plea was an Alford1 plea is of no conse*889quence.2

Concerning Ojegba’s claim of excessive force, the record does not support it. Because we conclude from the record that no excessive force was used, Ojegba fails to prove a constitutional violation occurred. *See Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).

For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Guilty plea accompanied by an assertion of innocence. *See North Carolina v. Alford,*400 *889U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

2

. See *Blohm v. Commissioner,*994 F.2d 1542, 1555 (11th Cir. 1993).
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2114 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-propene-2-methyl homopolymer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. WELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-propene-2-methyl 

homopolymer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1-PROPENE-2-METHYL HOMOPOLYMER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.06 1-propene-2-methyl 

homopolymer (CAS No. 

9003–27–4) (provided for in 

subheading 3902.30.00) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2114 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1995 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1995

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring 
 car dealerships to verify ownership before providing replacement keys.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

Mrs. Jones of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
  on the Judiciary, 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 direct the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring 
 car dealerships to verify ownership before providing replacement keys.

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

SECTION 1. THEFT PREVENTION STANDARDS.

    Section 33103 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g) Verification of Vehicle Ownership for Replacement Keys.--Not 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe a vehicle theft standard 
requiring automobile dealerships to verify ownership of a vehicle, 
including vehicle registration and driver's license, before providing a 
spare or replacement key for such vehicle. Notwithstanding section 
33115(a) of this title, a violation of a regulation prescribed under 
this subsection shall result in a fine of $1,000 per violation.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Noah Education Holdings Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year
ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dong Xu, Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 17, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Dong Xu            
|Name:  |  | Dong Xu                
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GARY CUNNINGHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-10, CA-02-106) Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary Cunningham, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cunningham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                          300398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1803748
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     586760
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2801414
<PP&E>                                         1109471
<DEPRECIATION>                                  865931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4030057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1552423
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       5678120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (3282843)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4030057
<SALES>                                        1715534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1715990
<CGS>                                           893320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1499833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 208592
<INCOME-TAX>                                     16600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             191992
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    191992
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>