alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James L. ARTHUR, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Myron BAKER, Robert Dragin, and Myron Roberts Realty, a/k/a Executive Club East Apartments and Shoreway Court Apartments, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-4149.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 17, 2005.

Joseph J. Jacobs, Jr., Lakewood, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey J. Wedel, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, OH, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before GIBBONS and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; and EDGAR, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable R. Allan Edgar, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant James L. Arthur, III (“Arthur”), brings a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and corresponding State law, Ohio Revised Code § 4112. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. *237We review the district court’s decision *de novo. DiCarlo v. Potter,*358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir.2004). The district court concluded that, taking the proof in the most favorable light to Arthur, he failed to show that he was “disabled” under the terms of either the ADA or Ohio law. After review of the record in this case, the applicable law, and the arguments presented on appeal, we concur with the decision reached by the district court, as well as its rationale. Since further discussion by this court would only be duplicative, we AFFIRM for the reasons expressed in the district court’s July 28, 2003 opinion.

On appeal Arthur also claims that he was wrongfully terminated for filing a worker’s compensation claim. Arthur failed to raise this claim in the district court. Hence, we decline to consider this claim raised for the first time on appeal absent a plain miscarriage of justice. *Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov’t,*305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002). No such miscarriage of justice exists here.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA, Boeing, Provide a Peek at What the X-66A Will Look Like","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DkS2psUsbv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-boeing-provide-a-peek-at-what-the-x-66a-will-look-like\/\">NASA, Boeing, Provide a Peek at What the X-66A Will Look Like<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/nasa-boeing-provide-a-peek-at-what-the-x-66a-will-look-like\/embed\/#?secret=DkS2psUsbv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, Boeing, Provide a Peek at What the X-66A Will Look Like” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DkS2psUsbv\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/imqq53_boe_x66a_image9_post_02a.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,491,242
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         300,030
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            22,925,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 21,048,793
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      64,371,042
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        64,984,987
<LOANS>                                    290,897,048
<ALLOWANCE>                                  8,186,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             416,598,079
<DEPOSITS>                                 265,363,434
<SHORT-TERM>                                15,698,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         15,095,998
<LONG-TERM>                                 30,365,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,190,728
<OTHER-SE>                                  75,314,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             416,598,079
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             25,559,901
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            7,811,478
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            33,713,379
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,810,104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,047,504
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       23,323,875
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              (2,118,281)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             14,634,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,433,012
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,358,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.12
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,317,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             1,125,580
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,418,348
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             9,084,153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  761,790
<RECOVERIES>                                 1,982,155
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            8,186,237
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,438
<INVENTORY>                                      1,763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,661
<PP&E>                                         317,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 542,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,077
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   542,241
<SALES>                                        586,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               586,807
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  567,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (40,452)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,906
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,430)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,874)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (8.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (8.37)


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARSELL WILLIAMS.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Case 2:15-mj-01710-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01710-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01710-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 3
#### IN RE MILLER

No. 556P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 715

Petition by respondent for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129692 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129692 

 COA: 262644 

Wayne CC: 04-003787-01 

ANTONIO PETER JEMISON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2005 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 30, 2006 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America),
Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report). I, Wayland R. Hicks, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, 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, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/    WAYLAND R. HICKSWayland R. Hicks Chief Executive
Officer


August 7, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### George Francis *v.*Commonwealth.

Crimnal Law — Instruction—Exceptions.

Where instructions are not excepted to the action of the court in relation to *them, cannot*be *made*available as a grounds of reversal.

Same — Reinstructing the Jury.

It is not error to reinstruct the jury and more correctly and fully define the law to them after they had returned and was about to render a verdict not in accordance with the law.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The instructions which this court gave to the jury, taken together, seem to embrace the law of the case, but if they did not, as the instructions were not excepted to the action of the court in relation to them, cannot be made available as a ground of reversal in this court.

Nor does .it appear that the verdict of the jury was unauthorized by the evidence. On the contrary, the offense alleged in the indictment seems to have been sufficiently proved to require the jury to find as they did.

The only remaining enquiry is, as to the action of the court in reinstructing and directing the jury after they had returned, and *423were about to render a verdict, which was not in accordance with the law and facts of the case. And we perceive no error in this; the unauthorized verdict not having been received, nor the jury discharged it was not improper to more correctly and fully define the law to them, and thus enable them to conform their verdict to the law and evidence. Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*

*Turner, for appellant.*

*Attorney*General, *for appellee.*
S. 2693

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1475 Western

Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New York, as the ‘‘Lieutenant John F. Finn Post

Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT JOHN F. FINN POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 1475 Western Avenue, Suite 45, in Albany, New

York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lieutenant John

F. Finn Post Office’’.

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

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.2

Exhibit 32.2 Section 906 Certification of Chief Financial Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the
Company), I, Ronald L. Blevins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |       |  |               
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | --------------
|By: |  | /s/ Ronald L. Blevins   |  |  |  | Date: |  | August 7, 2009
|    |  | Ronald L. Blevins       |  |  |  |       |  |               
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |       |  |               



38
#### Wolf Kohn *v.*Annie Austin.

New Trial — Surprise.

Where the grounds for a new trial, is surprise, by the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, to be available, they must be sustained by affidavits as required by the Cieil Code — Sections 369-372.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 1, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The instructions and rulings of the court under which the jury found their verdict against the appellant and Sales, do not appear to have been objected to on the. trial, nor was any error therein assigned as a ground for a new trial. The objection to said instructions, taken for the first time in this court, is, therefore, not an available cause for reversal.

Nor does it appear that the court erred in refusing to grant the appellant a new trial on the ground that he was surprised by the testimony of witnesses examined by the plaintiff. If the cause of surprise assigned were sufficient if true it was not sustained by affidavits as required by the Civil Code. (Sections 369-372.)

The verdict of the jury does not seem liable to the objection that *156it was not sustained by tbe evidence, either as to tbe material facts in issue or tbe amount of tbe damages assessed.

*Bullock & Anderson, English & Hoke, for appellant.*

*Jackson, McKay, Harney & Harney, for appellee.*

Wherefore, tbe judgment is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE REGISTRANT'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                          11,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    264,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,485
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 355,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,435
<BONDS>                                        184,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   355,357
<SALES>                                        301,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,462
<CGS>                                          249,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,612
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,709
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,903
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,903
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS )

LIABILITY LITIGATION, ) 

 )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: )

 )

Michelle Mercurio, ) MDL Docket No. 15-2641

C.A. No. CV-15-1886-PHX-DGC )

 ) 

 )

Michelle Mercurio, ) NOTICE

 ) 

 Plaintiff(s), ) 

 ) 

v. )

 )

C R Bard, Inc., et al., )

 )

 Defendant(s) )

 IN THE ABOVE MATTER, you are advised that the case listed 

above (formerly Western District of New York 6:15-cv-6535) is now

consolidated with and part of MDL No. 2641 pursuant to the Transfer

Order filed September 21, 2015. Therefore, future pleadings 

pertaining to the above case will be filed in MDL-No. 2641, The 

title page of these documents should be prepared as shown 

above. 

 

September 21, 2015 BRIAN D. KARTH 

 Date DCE/Clerk of Court

 s/M. Pruneau 

 Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 87 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Jessie Earl STOVER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of IDAHO, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-35451.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2005.

*309Jessie Earl Stover, Boise, ID, pro se.

L. Lamont Anderson, Esq., Office of Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jessie Earl Stover, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, we review de novo, *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Stover contends that he is entitled to statutory and equitable tolling. Stover is not entitled to statutory tolling because he did not have a properly filed application for post-conviction or other collateral relief pending before a state court during the relevant time period to toll the statute of limitation. *See Saffold v. Carey,*312 F.3d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir.2002). To the extent that he argues that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action should be construed as a § 2254 action to toll the limitation period, this contention fails. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); *Duncan v. Walker,*533 U.S. 167, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 2124-29, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) (concluding that there is no tolling during pendency of federal habeas petition).

Likewise, Stover has failed to show any extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that rendered it impossible to file his federal habeas petition on time. *See Calderon v. United States Disk Ct. for the Cent. Disk of Cal.,*128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir.1997), *overruled on other grounds en banc,*163 F.3d 530, 540 (9th Cir.1998); *Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.