alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0452n.06

Case No. 1 9

- 4060
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY D. MANN; JOHN T. BRAGG; ERIC PASTRANO,

Plaintiff s
- Appell ants ,

v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION; MONA C. PARKS; GARY C. MOHR; DAVID HANNAH; JANICE DOUGLAS, Doctor; ANDREW D. EDDY , Doctor; ANNETTE CHAMBERS

- SMITH; GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATOR , Defendant s
- Appell ees
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BOGGS, SUTTON , and WHITE , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

. Some Ohio prisoners suffer from Hepatitis C, a slow

- moving infection
that can cause serious harm in some people . Ohio monitors all infected prisoners and provides at least some prisoners state

- of

- the

- art medication when a particular test indicate s the dis ease has reached a certain stage . Three Ohio prisoners with Hepatitis C, each denied th is medication when they asked for it , filed this putative class action under the Eighth (and Fourteenth) Amendment, challenging Ohio ’s policy for allocating the medicat ion

. They sought damages and an injunctionCase No. 19

- 4060 , Mann , et al., v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab

. and Corr., et al.

2 compelling the defendants to provide the medication

. The district court rejected their claims as a matter of law on the ground that no Eighth Amendment violation occurred

. After the three plaintiffs appealed t hat judgment, a few things happened. One: each of the named plaintiffs received at least some of the medication they asked for. That means their request for an injunction may be moot; we have no authority to compel the defendants to do something they ha ve already done. See Fialka

- Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs. , 639 F.3d 711, 714 (6th Cir. 2011). Two: the defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense to the plaintiffs’ request for money damages

. Because they did not raise the issue until now , the district court did not have an opportunity to consider the second prong of the defense: whether the defendants violated “clearly established law.” Taylor v. Barkes , 135 S. Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015). Three: the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has modified its protocols for treating Hepatitis
C. A ccording to representations from counsel at oral argument, a much larger group of inmates
has beco me eligible for immediate medication. In this evolving setting, w e think it best to allow the district court to address these issues
in the first instance : to determine whether the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is moot, to
determine wheth er qualified immunity bars their money

- damages claims, and to determine whether the new prison policy otherwise alters the landscape of this litigation. In the event some or all of the parties remain dissatisfied with the district court’s rulings on reman d, we stand ready to entertain a second appeal. See 6th Cir. I.O.P. 34(b)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,926,089
<SECURITIES>                                15,428,137
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,076,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                   550,000
<INVENTORY>                                 29,871,999
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            85,739,972
<PP&E>                                     122,423,953
<DEPRECIATION>                              48,716,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             162,738,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,659,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        89,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 135,778,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               162,738,613
<SALES>                                     91,719,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            92,230,409
<CGS>                                       63,187,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               79,452,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,777,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,630,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,147,562
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,147,562
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
        

</TABLE>
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT



(EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN)





AGREEMENT, made this October 1, 1997, by and between James M. Paul (hereinafter referred to as "Trustee"), and Chyron Corporation, a New York corporation with its principal offices at 5 Hub Drive, Melville, New York 11747.



WHEREAS, the Trustee has agreed to provide his service to the Chyron Corp. Employee's Pension Plan, (the "Plan") provided that Chyron Corporation (the "Company") agrees to indemnify and hold it harmless for certain actions or inactions as Trustee; and



WHEREAS, the Company has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the Trustee for certain actions or inactions as Trustee.



NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:



1.	To the maximum extent permitted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and by other applicable Federal or state law, the Trustee shall not be liable for (either jointly or severally), and the Company shall indemnify the Trustee against, and agree to hold the Trustee harmless from, any and all liabilities and claims (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses in defending against such liabilities and claims) against the Trustee arising from any action or inaction of the Trustee with respect to the Plan, unless such liability or expense results from grossly negligent or willful acts of commission or omission by the Trustee.  The foregoing indemnification also shall apply to all liabilities and claims against the Trustee arising from any breach of fiduciary responsibility by fiduciaries other than Trustee, unless the Trustee participates knowingly in such breach, or has actual knowledge of such breach and fails to take reasonable remedial action to remedy such breach.  The Trustee shall be entitled to collect on the Company's indemnity under this Agreement only from the Company and shall not be entitled to payment directly or indirectly from the Plan.



2.	The Trustee shall give the Company prompt written notice of any asserted or potential claim by any party with respect to which the Trustee reasonably expects to assert a claim for indemnification.  The Company shall have the right to defend and control the nature of any action or defense to any such claim or demand which may be asserted against the Trustee for which the Trustee reasonably expects to assert a claim for indemnification.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and executed this Agreement, effective October 1, 1997.



| |     | CHYRON CORPORATION          
| | --- | ----------------------------
| |     |                             
| |     |                             
| | By: | /s/ Robert S. Matlin        
| |     | Name: Robert S. Matlin, Esq.
| |     | Title:   Secretary          
| |     |                             
| |     |                             
| |     | /s/ James M. Paul           
| |     | Name: James M. Paul         
| |     |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Zimmerman Truck Lines, Inc., and Chad

Frymire

,

Appellant,

v.

Katrina Pastran

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 131

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2012DCV04303 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’s Reply Brief Second motion for extension of time

within which to file the Appellant’s reply brief until A pril 9 , 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO F ILE THE APPELL ANT ’S REPLY BR IEF WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Oscar A. Lara , the Appell ant ’s Attorney , prepare the

Appell ant ’s reply brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 9 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3 rd day of April , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McCl ure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6725 

To change the address of the Marilyn Monroe Post Office, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2022 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To change the address of the Marilyn Monroe Post Office, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR MARILYN MONROE 

4 POST OFFICE. 

5 Section 1 of Public Law 116–80 is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘SECTION 1. MARILYN MONROE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

8 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

9 States Postal Service located at 15701 Sherman Way in 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6725 IH

1 Van Nuys, California, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘Marilyn Monroe Post Office Building’. 

3 ‘‘(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, 

4 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘Marilyn Monroe Post 

7 Office Building’.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Orlando David ALMOND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7272.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Orlando David Almond, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Orlando David Almond appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Because no second or successive petition is permitted unless the petitioner first receives permission from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(2000), the district court properly dismissed Amond’s habeas petition. *See Almond v. Robinson,*No. CA-02-208-3 (E.D.Va. July 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          275000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   138000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      56000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                510000
<PP&E>                                         2208000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   81000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3236000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           267000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        848000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3236000
<SALES>                                         917000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1104000
<CGS>                                           404000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   404000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                581000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 117000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             117000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    117000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
Amendment of Employment Agreement between NW Mutual Ins. Co. & Michael C. Keller



 Exhibit 10.41.1 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of March 1, 2005, by and between Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (the
“Company”) and Michael Keller (the “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS the Company and the Executive have entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”), and the parties now wish to amend the Employment Agreement.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending
to be legally bound, hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 2.3(b)(vi) is hereby amended to revise the last two sentences to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vi) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the
applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had Executive’s interest in the applicable Plans been fully vested). The benefits payable under this subsection (vi) and subsection (vii) below shall not result in any
duplication of benefits. 
  
 2. Section
2.3(b)(vii) is amended by revising the last sentence to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vii) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had
Executive’s interests in the applicable Plans been fully vested). 
  
 3. Section 3.4(b)(vii) is revised by amending the last sentence to read as follows: 
  
 The benefits under this subsection (vii) shall be paid in the same forms and at the same times as Executive’s benefits under the
applicable Plans described above are paid (or would have been paid had Executive’s interests in the applicable Plans been fully vested), as in effect immediately before the Change of Control. 
  









 4. In all respects not amended, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed. 
  
 WITNESS the following signatures:

  

									
	 	 	 	 	 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

	 	 	 	 	 COMPANY

				
	 	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 
	Michael Keller	 	 	 	 	 	 
					
	 Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	 
					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 

  

 2
177 La. 828

#### Dorothy McCray BELL v. Amedee BELL.

No. 31494.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

July 7, 1933.

R. F. Walker, of Baton Rouge, for defendant appellant.

Geo. Caldwell Herget, of Baton Rouge, for plaintiff: appellee.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

This is an action by a wife against her husband for separation from bed and board on the ground of cruel and outrageous treatment.

The alleged cruel and outrageous treatment consisted of the husband vilifying and abusing his wife and ordering her out of his house.

Plaintiff testifies to the occurrences and is corroborated by two witnesses.

Defendant denies the accusations, but’ produces no corroborative testimony.

The trial judge believed the plaintiff and her witnesses and gave her judgment accordingly, and we see no manifest error in his judgment.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00591- CV

In re P aul Dougl as Arc her

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM CO MAL CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Paul Doug las Arc her, an inmate convicted of the offe nses of indece ncy with
a child and ag g rava ted sexual assault, has filed a pro se petition f

or writ of mandamus ag ainst the 1 Sheriff of Comal County and the chief civil leg al assistant of the Comal County District Attorney ’s Offic e. The pet i t i o n al l eg es that responde nts have ref used to provide information reque sted by rela tor under the Texas Public I nformation Act. See Tex. Gov’t C o d e An n . § § 552.001-.353 (West 2004 & Supp. 2010).

This Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is limit ed. We have jurisdiction to issue a w rit of mandamus ag ainst district or county court judg es in our district. See id
. § 22.221(b) ( West 2004). We do not have mandamus jurisdicti o n aga i n s t o ther individuals unless issuance of the writ is
nece ssary to enfor ce this Court’s jurisdiction. See id
. § 22.221(a) ; s ee a l s o S i lva v. Klevenhage n , 833 S.W .2d 7 4 6 , 7 4 7 (T ex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig
. proce eding ). Relator has not

See A r ch er v. State , Nos. 03-07-00019- CR & 03-07-00020-CR, 2007 Tex. App. L EXI S 1 6612 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug
. 17, 2007, pet. ref’d, unti mely filed) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication).demonstrated, and we do not conclude , that the reque sted relief is nece ssary to en fo rc e o ur

jurisdiction. The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a)
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Filed: Oc tober 19, 2011

2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19996]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting and 
planning meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the 
Commission will convene at 9:15 a.m. on Friday, September, 19, 2008, at 
the Rhode Island State House, Room 222, in Providence, Rhode Island. 
The purpose of the briefing meeting is to hear from law enforcement 
officials, government officials, advocacy groups and other members of 
the community on the issue of racial profiling. After the briefing the 
committee will have a planning meeting to further define its project on 
fair housing in Rhode Island.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by October 17, 2008. 
The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th St., NW., Washington, 
DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire 
additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 
202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6100061304040f042114120202134f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2243455047474c476257514141500c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meetings.
    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of 
this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the 
above e-mail or street address.
    The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, August 25, 2008.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E8-19996 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
xhibit 32.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Kenneth A. Swanstrom, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that to his knowledge:

1.   The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2003
     (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


Dated:  August 14, 2003
                                                       /s/ Kenneth A. Swanstrom
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Kenneth A. Swanstrom
                                                       Chairman of the Board and
                                                       Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.