alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Cite as Warren v. Cent. State Univ., 2011-Ohio-5958.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

SUSAN WARREN, Case No. 2008-09520 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Judge Joseph T. Clark 

 Magistrate Anderson M. Renick 

CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., 

 Defendants. JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶1} This case is sua sponte assigned to Judge Joseph T. Clark to conduct all 

proceedings necessary for decision in this matter. 

{¶2} On October 21, 2011, the magistrate issued a decision recommending 

judgment for defendants. 

{¶3} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a 

magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the 

court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 

53(D)(4)(e)(i).” 

{¶4} Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i) provides: “The court may enter a judgment either during 

the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of objections to a 

magistrate’s decision or after the fourteen days have expired. If the court enters a 

judgment during the fourteen days permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) for the filing of 

objections, the timely filing of objections to the magistrate’s decision shall operate as an 

automatic stay of execution of the judgment until the court disposes of those objections 

and vacates, modifies, or adheres to the judgment previously entered.” 

{¶5} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on 
Case No. 2008-09520 - 2 - ENTRY

the face of the magistrate’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the magistrate’s 

decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of 

law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendants. Court costs are 

assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment 

and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Don A. Little 

7960 Clyo Road 

Clyo Professional Center 

Dayton, Ohio 45459 

Eric A. Walker 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Jessica R. Moss 

7501 Paragon Road 

Lower Level 

Dayton, Ohio 45459 

Filed October 21, 2011 

To S.C. reporter November 18, 2011
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.01

                 AMENDMENT TO 1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN, AS AMENDED


On March 16, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Company approved amending the
above-referenced plan to increase the number of shares of common stock, par
value $.10 per share, of the Company available for grant as stock options by
1,000,000 shares. All other terms of the plan remained unchanged.
H. Res. 84 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 26, 2009. 

Whereas US Airways Flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia 

Airport in Queens, New York, on January 15, 2009, 

bound for Charlotte, North Carolina, and lost engine 

power shortly after takeoff; 

Whereas Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III and First Officer Jeffrey B. Skiles recognized the need to land the 

plane quickly and sought out the Hudson River as the 

best option to avoid populated areas; 

Whereas Sullenberger and Skiles displayed quick thinking 

and skillful control of the aircraft, setting the plane down 

in a controlled landing in the water; 

Whereas flight attendants Sheila Dail, Doreen Welsh, and 

Donna Dent of Flight 1549 reacted swiftly to prepare 

passengers for impact in a minimal amount of time; 

Whereas local ferry boats, official police boats, and U.S. 

Coast Guard crafts were able to reach the airliner quickly 

and rescue the passengers and crew from the near-freezing water; 

Whereas Dail, Welsh, and Dent evacuated all 150 passengers 

onto the awaiting U.S. Coast Guard, ferry boats, and official police boats within minutes; 
2 

•HRES 84 EH 

Whereas even as the plane began sinking in the Hudson 

River, Sullenberger remained in the plane surveying the 

aisle twice to make sure all passengers had gotten out 

safely before he exited the aircraft; and 

Whereas due to the heroic efforts of the flight crew of Flight 

1549, and the rescue boats, all 155 passengers and crew 

survived, without serious injury: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) applauds the skill, quick thinking, and bravery 

of Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III and First Officer 

Jeffrey B. Skiles; 

(2) commends the quick response by the flight attendants Doreen Welsh, Donna Dent, and Sheila Dail of 

Flight 1549 to prepare passengers for impact and rapid 

evacuation; and 

(3) praises the quick response from the boats, first 

responders, and private citizens that arrived at the scene 

to aid and rescue passengers. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[Cite as State v. Flannery , 2021-Ohio-37.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

GERALD FLANNERY, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-07-073

D E C I S I O N 1/11/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 20CRB00493

Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 Hig h Street, 2nd Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011, for appellee Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Gerald Flannery, the transcript of the docket and jo urnal 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 ofButler CA2020-07-073 the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw 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 appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse 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 i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and PIPER, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2, 2019

p0325 

# Order

Clerk April 2, 2019

158426

JILL TOWNES and KELLY ISQUIERDO,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 158426

COA: 342360

Kent CC: 16

- 001454

- NI

NICHOLAS SOLIS

- VELASQUEZ, ISABEL

MENDOZA and USAA CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., did not participate due to her prior relationship with Garan Lucow

Mille r, P.C.
#### Dennis Dean SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50156.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 30, 1995.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Saunders appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion, pursuant to Rule 24.035, to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment and sentence. Mr. Saunders contends that his post-conviction counsel abandoned him by failing to file an amended Rule 24.035 motion and by failing to request an evidentiary hearing. He also alleges that the motion court erred by failing to make a record of his post-conviction counsel’s compliance with Rule 24.035(e).

Counsel did not abandon his client by failing to file an amended motion under Rule 24.035. Counsel’s Affidavit and Notice of Waiver of Amended Pleadings demonstrated his compliance with Rule 24.035, and no fur*725ther record was required to be made by the motion court.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 71 Filed 05/11/18 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 71 Filed 05/11/18 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 71 Filed 05/11/18 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 71 Filed 05/11/18 Page 4 of 4
<TABLE>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 21.1




                                         BEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                              SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation          Doing Business As (If Different)
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>                                    <C>
BEI Sensors & Systems Company, Inc.         Delaware                               BEI Sensors & Systems Company

BEI International, Inc                      Delaware

BEI Export Sales Company, Inc.              U.S. Virgin Islands

BEI Properties, Inc.                        Arkansas

SiTek, Inc., a BEI Company                  Delaware

Defense Systems Company, Inc.               Delaware                               BEI Defense Systems Company

BEI Sensors, S.A.S.                         France

BEI Tactical Defense Systems, Inc.          Delaware

Neovasys, Inc.                              Delaware

BEI Ideacod, S.A.S.                         France

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, K.C. Chao, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Novel Denim
          Holdings Limited;

     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;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls
     and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
     the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
     and

     5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
     or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
     control over financial reporting.

                                    Date: September 30, 2003

                                    /s/ K.C. Chao
                                    ---------------------------

                                    K.C. Chao
                                    Chief Executive Officer and President
Case 2:17-cr-01539-DLR Document 1 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01539-DLR Document 1 Filed 10/02/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01539-DLR Document 1 Filed 10/02/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01539-DLR Document 1 Filed 10/02/17 Page 4 of 4
Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 Case No. CR-18-422-DJH

ORDER

Upon Motion of the Defendant, with good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Joye Vaught leave to appear by 

[phone/videoconferencing] at the August 18, 2023 status in this matter. Details 

for the remote appearance will be emailed to Ms. Vaught’s counsel, Joy Bertrand.

SO ORDERED this _______ day of ___________, 2023.

______________________

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1697-1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 1
#### William COLEMAN-BEY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 57117.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 19, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 26, 1990.

llene A. Goodman, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert P. Sass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 850 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 850

   Supporting the establishment and full funding of a staff exchange 
  program between the House of Representatives and the Parliament of 
           Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, as soon as possible.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2009

 Ms. Kaptur submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Supporting the establishment and full funding of a staff exchange 
  program between the House of Representatives and the Parliament of 
           Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, as soon as possible.

Whereas supporters of democracy worldwide recognize the valor of the people of 
        Ukraine in seeking to advance democratic governance in their country;
Whereas the role of the Parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, is essential 
        to ensuring democratic governance and a balance of power among the 
        branches of the Government of Ukraine;
Whereas the people of the United States affirm the positive role being played by 
        the Parliament of Ukraine in averting a constitutional crisis in that 
        transitional republic;
Whereas, on November 30, 1999, the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        signed an agreement with the leaders of the Parliament of Ukraine to 
        establish an interparliamentary exchange program between the two 
        legislative bodies;
Whereas Members of the House of Representatives and the Parliament of Ukraine 
        have already participated in video teleconferences as part of this 
        agreement; and
Whereas the House of Representatives has commended these historic efforts and 
        expressed its desire and willingness to build on the success of this 
        agreement: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
establishment and full funding of a staff exchange program between the 
House of Representatives and the Parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna 
Rada, as soon as possible.
                                 <all>
```
```

                                                          SCE Funding LLC
                                              Annual Summary of Monthly Certificates
                                                   Year Ending December 31, 2000

                                                                                             Small
                                                                     Residential          Commercial
                                                                      Customers             Customers              Total
                                                                      ---------             ---------              -----

     Kilowatt hours of electricity billed                            25,774,220,448        4,718,995,849        30,493,216,297
     FTA Charged per kilowatt hour (Jan. 00 - Dec. 2000)                      1.235(cent)          1.306(cent)             N/A
     Billed FTA Charges                                                $318,311,623          $61,630,086          $379,941,708

     Estimated FTA Payments                                            $316,720,064          $61,383,565          $378,103,630

     Estimated Write-off                                                 $1,591,558             $246,520            $1,838,078
     Remittance Shortfall - increased payment                              $207,119               $9,704              $216,824
         to the Collection Account
     Excess Remittance - reduced payment                                   $383,986             $163,395              $547,380
         to the Collection Account
     Net Write-off*                                                      $1,414,692              $92,830            $1,507,522

     FTA Payments estimated to have been                               $314,408,201          $60,847,393          $375,255,595
         received by the Servicer
     Remittance Shortfall - increased payment                              $207,119               $9,704              $216,824
         to the Collection Account
     Excess Remittance - reduced payment                                   $383,986             $163,395              $547,380
         to the Collection Account
     Aggregate Remittance to Collection Account                        $314,231,335          $60,693,702          $374,925,038

     * Write-offs for months July through December are estimated at 0.5% for
     residential customers, and 0.4% for small commercial customers
```
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Peter Kozinets (602) 514-7500 09/14/2021

U.S. Attorney's Office

40 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1800 Phoenix AZ 85004

CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB Susan M. Brnovich 9/10/2021

U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et al. Phoenix AZ

✔

✔

Trial (PM session) 09/10/2021

✔ ✔

peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov;marjorie.dieckman@usdoj.gov

s/Peter S. Kozinets (R21AZX90254)

09/14/2021

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1310 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 1
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-16-00125-CR 

________________

JORGE GEOVANNY VALLECILLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 410th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-03-03037-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jorge Geovanny Vallecillo has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal is signed by appellant personally 

and joined by counsel of record. No opinion has issued in this appeal. The motion 

is granted, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
2

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN 

 Chief Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2016

Opinion Delivered July 27, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.