alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE OFINDIANA —) IN THE NOBLE SUPERIOR I COURT
)SS: . FR.

COUNTY OFNOBLE  ) causeno, S/COI-15 09 75-000067
STATE OF INDIANA )

)
vs FILED

)
JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN
DOB: 04/10/1964 } SEP 01 2015
SSN: xxx-xx-9449 y

CLERK NOBLE CIRCUIT COURT
ARFIDAVIT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE

Deputy Kyle Hartman/1314, affirins that he believes and has good cause to believe that:

One JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN did commit the offense of Failure to Register as a Sex
Offender, in violation of LC. 11-8-8-17, and the facts upon which such belief is based, are as
follows: . ° .

a) That the undersigned is a Deputy with the Noble County Sheriff's Department, and the .
. Defendant is a competent adult over the age of eighteen (18) years, having been born on
APRIL 10%, 1964,

b) On the 26" day of August, 2015, the officer was completing a sex offender registration
verification on JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN.

¢) This officer has learned JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN was convicted of sexual battery in
Kosciusko County, Indiana, under cause number 43D01-9608-CF-227, wherein sentence
was entered on the 19" day of February 1996.

a) This officer has learned that JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN was convicted on July 27°,
2009 of Failure to Register as a Sex or Violent offender in Noble County, Indiana, under
cause number 57D01-0906-FD-122.

e) The officer learned that JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN is required to register as a sex or
violent offender for until 19 day of February 2022.

£) This officer discovered a social networking site i.e. Facebook page utilized by Jeff Brown
with a photograph that appeared to be that of the defendant. The Facebook account
appeared to be active since June of 2015.

2) This officer checked the Indiana Sex or Violent Offender Registry and leamed that
JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN had failed to register his Social Media account ie. Facebook
on his Indiana Sex or Violent Offender Registry change of status form, within seventy-two
hours of the said change. .

EXHIBIT



h) JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN is required to register a change in his ptincipal address, He *
failed to do so within 72 hours when he moved on July 10", 2015 from 112 South Riley
Street Kendallville, IN to 1004 Garden Street Apt 3 Kendallville, IN.

i) JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN made a material misstatement or omission. when registering
on May 20", 2015 when he omitted information on his Facebook Account, —

j) JEFFREY SCOTT BROWN made.a material misstatement or omission when registering
on June 19", 2015 when he omitted information on his Facebook Account.

I affirm, under the penalties of perjury, as specified by I.C. 35-44.1-2-1, that the foregoing
representations are true and correct.

Dated on this 27" day of August, 2015.

Députy KVle Hartman/1514

NOBLE CO SHERIFF 0156
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,932
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      4,895
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,379
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            19,094
<LOANS>                                         59,949
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,768
<DEPOSITS>                                      97,163
<SHORT-TERM>                                       160
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                773
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,614
<OTHER-SE>                                    (19,942)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 102,768
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,473
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  372
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   170
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,015
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 704
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 711
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,304
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (135)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (135)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (135)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.38
<LOANS-NON>                                        871
<LOANS-PAST>                                        14
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 5,004
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,969
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      449
<RECOVERIES>                                       126
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,646
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,698
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            948
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                               5
<CIK>                                          0000712843
<NAME>                                  ELXSI CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                            USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                            613,000
<SECURITIES>                                    2,181,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,571,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      218,000
<INVENTORY>                                    12,461,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,713,000
<PP&E>                                         33,133,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 88,438,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,344,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               4,000
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     64,731,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   88,438,000
<SALES>                                        24,550,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,550,000
<CGS>                                          19,621,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  23,125,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  100,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                325,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,310,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      529,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               781,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      781,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .16


</TABLE>
#### James R. BAILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1216.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 14, 2011.

Decided: June 22, 2011.

*250Todd A. Biddle, Melissa Eakle Leasure, Bailes, Craig & Yon, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew J. Perry, Lamp, O’Dell, Bartram, Levy, Trautwein & Perry, P.L.L.C., Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James R. Bailes appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment for Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (“Erie”) in Bailes’ declaratory judgment action seeking coverage on two insurance contracts. Bailes sought to determine whether policies issued by Erie provided coverage against claims arising from an accidental death as well as injuries to others in a rental property owned by Bailes and his brother. Bailes also appeals the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. *See PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp.,*559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); *see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *Robinson v. Clipse,*602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir.2010). We review the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment for abuse of discretion. *Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc.,*616 F.3d 380, 388 (4th Cir.2010).

After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that the express terms of the Ultracover Home Protector insurance policy and the Personal Catastrophe Liability Endorsement exclude coverage for the claims asserted against Bailes that give rise to this litigation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. §1350



In connection with the annual report of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William B. Olson, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.



|                    |  |  |  |                                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 30, 2005 |  |  |  |                                                       
|                    |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | /s/ WILLIAM B. OLSON                                  
|                    |  |  |  | William B. Olson Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
# C_2008141EN.01001201.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5127 — Sita/Renault/Indra)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 141/06)

On 29 May 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5127. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5127. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# L_2008219EN.01007301.xml

| 14.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 219/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 219/73

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 30 of 4 February 2008
  )

On page 66, in the Annex — Statutes of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking, Article 19(3)

for:

‘3.   The Annual Implementation Plan shall specify the plan for the execution of all the activities of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for a particular year, including planned calls for proposals and actions needing to be implemented through calls for proposals. (...)’,

read:

‘3.   The Annual Implementation Plan shall specify the plan for the execution of all the activities of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking for a particular year, including planned calls for proposals and actions needing to be implemented through calls for tenders. (...)’.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TOMKINSON DODGE, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-174

)

ENCLOSED AUTO TRANSPORTS, LLC, )

and TERELL JONES, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Tomkinson Dodge, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to

Serve Expedited Discovery. (Docket # 7.) To comply with this Court’s previous order to amend

the Complaint to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists (Docket # 6), Plaintiff seeks to serve

its First Set of Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories to Defendants, which consists of

only five requests aimed at discerning the citizenship of Defendant Enclosed Auto Transport,

LLC, and requests expedited responses to those requests—namely, responses seven days after

service (see Docket # 7-1). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 governs interrogatories, while Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 36 governs requests for admission. FED. R. CIV. P. 33, 36. Although both rules give a

party served with interrogatories or requests for admission 30 days after service to respond, they

also provide that the Court can order a shorter, or longer, time for responding. FED. R. CIV. P.

33(b)(2), 36(a)(3).

Ultimately, the circumstances of this case warrant not only allowing Plaintiff to serve

early discovery, but also requiring Defendants to respond in an expedited manner to that

1
discovery. This case involves valuable property and Plaintiff’s request for immediate possession

of that property that may otherwise depreciate in the meantime. (See Docket # 5.) Moreover,

before that motion can be ruled on, the Court must ensure itself that diversity jurisdiction exists,

see Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2007), which Plaintiff’s

requests for admission and interrogatories are aimed at discovering. And finally, Plaintiff’s

proposed discovery is brief and can be promptly responded to because the information sought is

within Defendants’ personal knowledge. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Expedited Discovery (Docket # 7) is

GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to serve responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for

Admissions and Interrogatories (Docket # 7-1) on or before June 12, 2013. The Clerk is directed

to send a copy of this Opinion and Order and Docket # 7-1 to Defendants1

 at their last known

addresses: 

Enclosed Auto Transport, LLC Terrell Jones

c/o Terrell Jones, Registered Agent 12515 Early Morning Drive

12515 Early Morning Drive Florissant, MO 63033

Florissant, MO 63033

And because counsel have yet to appear for either Defendant, the Clerk is to send a copy

of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 36 to each Defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 5th day of June, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff has alternatively referred to one Defendant as Enclosed Auto Transports,

LLC, and at other times, Enclosed Auto Transport, LLC, and has spelled Defendant Jones’s first name two different

ways—as both Terell and Terrell.

2
849 F.2d 648

#### AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SSA FIELD OPERATIONS LOCALS, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration Field Operations, Intervenor. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondent, National Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor.

Nos. 87-1446, 87-1770.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 13, 1988.

William Kanter and Howard S. Scher, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the motions to reconsider and to permit intervenor to proceed in place of petitioner, filed by intervenor Department of Health and Human Services, and on the opposition to motion to dismiss, filed by respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Ruth E. Peters, Sol., William E. Persina, Deputy Sol., Arthur A. Horowitz, Associate Sol. and Elsa D. Newman, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., were on the motion to dismiss and on the response in opposition to motion to proceed as petitioner, both filed by respondent.

ON MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER, TO PROCEED AS PETITIONER, AND TO DISMISS

Before MIKVA, EDWARDS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the motions to reconsider the order dismissing the case and to proceed as the petitioner and the opposition thereto in Case No. 87-1446 and the motion to dismiss in Case No. 87-1770 and the opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED by the court that the motion to reconsider the order dismissing the case in 87-1446 be denied and the motion to dismiss the petition for review in 87-1770 be granted. Intervenor and petitioner have failed to establish that they are “persons aggrieved” by the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s (“FLRA”) order within the meaning of section 7123(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7101*et seq.*(1982). *See Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers v. NLRB,*694 F.2d 1289, 1294 (D.C.Cir.1982). Neither agency has been required to engage in any affirmative act nor has the FLRA’s order caused any direct injury to the agencies. In any event, the agencies would not be precluded from judicial review on a petition for review from an unfavorable FLRA decision in an Unfair Labor Practice proceeding or negotiability appeal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed as petitioner in 87-1446 be dismissed as moot.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00259-CV 

IN RE ALLIANCE ANESTHESIA 

ASSOCIATES, P.A., GENE 

VERTKIN, M.D., & WENDI 

CABANO, R.N.

RELATORS

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered “Relators Motion To Dismiss As Moot Relators’ 

Petition For Writ Of Mandamus,” and is of the opinion that the petition should be 

dismissed as moot. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 29, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelly Fitzgerald, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), imposed August 22, 1984.

Sentence affirmed. No opinion.

This case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.