alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6283

TIMOTHY E. HATCHETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.--Annex; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-644-DKC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Timothy E. Hatchett, Appellant Pro Se. David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hatchett v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-644-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 16, 1998). 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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Goodloe Marine, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61960

)

Under Contract No. W912EP

- 11

- D

- 0020 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Michael H. Payne, Esq.

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC

Philadelphia, PA

Casey J. McKinnon, Esq

.

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, PC

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Susan E. Symanski, Esq.

Bruce E. Groover, Esq.

Kristin M. Bigham, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys

U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 1, 2024

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61960

, Appeal of Goodloe

Marine, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 1, 2024

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

L. H. H., a minor, by and through his )

mother and next friend, ESMERALDA )

HOLMAN HERNANDEZ, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:13-CV-452-PRC

)

GERALD HORTON, ANGELO BRADSHAW, )

CITY OF GARY, INDIANA, and GARY )

COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an Affidavit in Support of Second Motion to Compel and

for Sanctions [DE 62], filed on May 15, 2015. The affidavit was filed pursuant to this Court’s May

8, 2015 Amended Opinion and Order. That Order denied as moot Plaintiff’s Second Motion to

Compel insofar as it sought to compel discovery from Defendants Horton and Gary Community

School Corporation (the parties worked out a solution to the dispute after the motion was filed), but

granted it insofar as it asked for an award of attorney fees and costs, as required by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). The Court directed Plaintiff’s attorney to file an affidavit of fees and

costs by May 15, 2015, which he did, and granted Defendants until May 26, 2015, to file a response.

May 26 has come and gone, and no response has been filed.1

Plaintiff’s attorney represents that his billing rate is $500 per hour and that he worked 2.8

hours on the underlying motion. This adds up to $1,400 in requested fees. As explained in detail in

this Court’s March 10, 2015 Order, the $500-per-hour rate, though perhaps higher than average, is

1

 The Order actually set the deadline for May 25, 2015, but as that day was a Court holiday (Memorial Day),

the Court deems the deadline to have been automatically extended to May 26.
acceptable. See generally L.H.H. ex rel. Hernandez v. Horton, No. 2:13-CV-452-PRC, 2015 WL

1057466, at *2–*3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2015). And the Court sees no reason to question the number

of hours Plaintiff’s attorney represents that he worked on the motion. Cf. id. at *3–*5 (analyzing

which types of work are eligible for a fee award under Rule 37).

For these reasons, and in light of the lack of response, the Court ORDERS Defendants

Horton and Gary Community School Corporation to pay Plaintiff $1,400 in attorney fees within a

reasonable time.

SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2015.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### MELCHER, Appellant, v. KREISER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by John L. Melcher, as attorney and agent for the owners, against Samuel Kreiser.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10-costs and disbursements. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 71.
#### Robert W. Heyer et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wallace R. Cotton, J.), entered on November 9, 1983, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of damages, without costs and without disbursements, unless plaintiffs, within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein upon their attorney, with notice of entry, serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in their favor to $850,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If the plaintiffs so stipulate, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Fein, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,719
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,127
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     57,279
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             200
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               200
<LOANS>                                        142,767
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,097
<DEPOSITS>                                     199,078
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,057
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,246
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 227,097
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,387
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,776
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   294
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,457
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,772
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,943
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,514
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      206
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (8)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,345
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,345
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       858
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.34
<LOANS-NON>                                        363
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   924
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,485
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       18
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,678
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,678
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

14-15-00758-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/7/2015 3:39:42 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/7/2015 3:39:42 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Groups
                        Corn & Soybean Virus Lab
                                    Soft Wheat Quality LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Docs





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

2009 Research Review Conferenceheadline bar Highlights of the 56th Annual Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory Research Review Conference included: Please click on the links below and allow a few minutes for the presentation to load. Edward Souza (USDA-ARS) Breeder Evaluations Cereal Chemistry Tests and Recommended Markers Chemically-leavened cracker bench-top baking method  Oxidative Gelation - Its Influence on Processing and End-Use in Soft Wheat Flour
  Arabinoxylan Content and Structure in Soft Wheat
  Predicting Cookie Quality
 Ed Souza (USDA-ARS) Wheat CAP: Mapping of Wheat Quality Terry Nelsen (USDA-ARS Retired) Falling Number Steve Harrison (Louisiana State University) Southeastern University Grain Collaborative Small Grain Breeding Program


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements of Avatex Corporation for the
six months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          39,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,515
<PP&E>                                             174
<DEPRECIATION>                                      90
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,405
<BONDS>                                          9,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          258,319
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,032
<OTHER-SE>                                   (263,109)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,961
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,753)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   8,194
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,441
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)


</TABLE>
[No. 20144-5-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 1997.]

#### Pamela G. Read, *Respondent,*v. Carl Knecht, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-2-05232-6, Terry D. Sebring, J., entered October 25, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Hunt, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Meru Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ihab Abu-Hakima,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
**EXHIBIT 13.01**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”)on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Thomas G. Howitt, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)              the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)             the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Thomas G. Howitt    |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Thomas G. Howitt        |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
| December 30, 2008  |   |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofHome Director, Inc. (the "Company") on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Michael D. Liddle, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.

|                          |  |                                                    |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------------|--|----------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|      |  | /s/Michael Liddle                                  |
|                     |  | Michael LiddlePresidentand Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |

November 19,2004

----
#### SEVENTEENTH STREET REALTY CO., Appellant, v. AUSLANDER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22,1912.)

Action brought by the Seventeenth Street Realty Company against Jacob Auslander. ■ S. Bernstein, for appellant. S. B. Lilienstern, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Exhibit 13.1


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Torm A/S (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacob Meldgaard, 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:





(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.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: June 21, 2013











/s/ Jacob Meldgaard


Jacob Meldgaard


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
of Nobilis Health Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Klein, Chief Financial 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.

/s/ Kenneth KleinKenneth Klein Chief Financial
Officer April 29, 2016

---
#### JONES, Appellant, v. WOODIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Frederick A. Jones against William H. Woodin and others. C. L. Craig, for appellant. C. K. Carpenter, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### In the Matter of Roy Salisbury et al., Respondents, v Board of Assessors of the Town of Glenville, Appellant.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Dier, J.), entered September 28, 1984 in Schenectady County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioners own commercial property in the Town of Glenville, Schenectady County, which has been assessed at $161,000 since 1980.

On June 20, 1983, petitioners filed a complaint with respondent charging inequality and overvaluation in the assessment for 1984. Because that portion of the complaint form wherein the property owner is expected to furnish information substantiating the complaint had not been completed, respondent demanded documentary support from petitioners that the assessment should be reduced, as claimed, to $80,000. Petitioners agreed to produce the requested information in court. At that time, trial of petitioners’ challenges to respondent’s assessments for the tax years 1980,1981 and 1982 was imminent. That trial, which concluded on August 25, 1983, resulted in apparently unappealed orders and judgments decreeing that respondent had indeed overstated the value of the property by $30,000. In the course of that proceeding, the appraisers for petitioners and respondent both agreed that the improvement on the land had been overassessed.

Despite this determination, respondent nevertheless rejected petitioners’ 1984 request to reduce the $161,000 assessment on the ground that “insufficient information” had been submitted. Petitioners then filed a petition, pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, challenging that assessment. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that by willfully neglecting and refusing to supply the requested information, petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Respondent appeals from Special Term’s order denying the motion.

We affirm. Although Real Property Tax Law § 525 (2) declares that a person who willfully neglects to cooperate with the inquiries of a board of assessment review relevant to a contested assessment is not entitled to a reduction thereof, given the circumstances, respondent’s reliance on this section for the *1023proposition that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies is somewhat disingenuous. Petitioners’ noncooperation was not occasioned by a desire to frustrate respondent’s search for an accurate assessment. Rather, it was occasioned by the imminency of judicial proceedings involving the very same parties, property and assessment, in which appraisal reports had been exchanged and, ostensibly, mandatory pretrial settlement conferences had been conducted.

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.