alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Burtus *against*M'Carty and Another.

cofnlaLnées11 ro? sSlui brought in mónrtpieas¡ must the coTMrt of the the sSt‘wSril lé"iallímhe'par. ties who entér into the recognisanee reside within its juris diction, and not in this *c&ucti*

*PAINE,*for the defendants,

moved to set aside the execution) judgment, and all proceedings in this cáuséi The suit .was on a recognisance of bail, taken in the court of common pleas of *Rensselaer*county. The defendants, who were special bail for the defendant, in the original suit, both Fesided in- *Rensselaer*countv, where they entered into therecoanisancé, and where they - . *J*■■ - . -¿J,-' . , • ‘ *A*were arrested in this suit, i he *capias*was returna ble in *August*, . . ’ , - term, and the principal was surrendered by his bail into the 5 *• * . • » •v . custody of the sheriff of *Rensselaer*on the 9th *Augusti*and: no» tice thereof given to the-plain tiff’s'attorney on the same day.

*Foot,*contra'*

*Per Curiam.*

The suit- on the recognisance of bail must be brought in the county where the original suit was commenced'. In *Davis*v, *Gillet,*(7 *Johns. Rep.*318.,) the bail had removed out off the county, so that they could not be there personally served with process* In *Haswell*v. *Bates & Lewis,*(9 *Johns. .Rep,*80.,) which was an action on a bail.-bopd taken in a court' of common pleas, the bail also resided out of the county; and in *Gardiner*v. *Buchan*& *Olcott (12 Johns. Rep.*459.,) which was also an action, on-a bail-bond,; the principal; resided, out of the ,county, though the bail lived within-tile county-in-wliieh the original suit -was brought.

Each court has i ts own rulés of practice as to pro'c eed ings. against bail, and it would be inconvenient for this court to be inquiring into the rules of practice of the different courts of common pleas. In the cases which have been mentioned the party would have been without remedy, unless this court had tpken cognizance of the suit against the bail-; and having, taken cognizance bf the cause, we afford the same relief as the court of common pleas, itere, the parties are within the jurisdiction- of the court off the county In wbiqh-the original suit was commenced, so that they can-be served with process out of that court on their recogni-.sanee. They must,-therefore, be'sued in the court of common pleas. _ , '

Motion granted.,--
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,270,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,534,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,723,000
<PP&E>                                      98,414,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              23,612,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,460,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,327,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       20,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       173,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,591,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,460,000
<SALES>                                     66,661,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            72,355,000
<CGS>                                       53,784,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               53,784,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,129,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,293,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,789,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,914,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,875,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,875,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Cite as Nelson v. Nelson, 2021-Ohio-33.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

WILLIAM DAVID NELSON, SR., : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 CASE NO. 2020-L-108

 - vs - : 

LISA DIMBERIO NELSON, et al., : 

 Defendants-Appellees. : 

Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, 

Case No. 15 DR 000030. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Susan T. Seacrist, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan, LPA, 100 7th Avenue, Suite 150, 

Chardon, OH 44024 and Kevin R. McMillan, McMillan & Sobel, LLC, 30195 Chagrin 

Boulevard, Pepper Pike, OH 44124 (For Plaintiff-Appellant). 

Sandra A. Dray, Sandra A. Dray Co., L.P.A., 1111 Mentor Avenue, Mentor, OH 44077 

(For Defendants-Appellees). 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, William Nelson, Sr. appeals the trial court’s October 6, 2020 

judgment ruling on objections to a magistrate’s decision and ordering counsel for 

appellee, Lisa Nelson, to prepare and submit a judgment entry conforming with the trial 

court’s orders and the parties’ agreements. 

{¶2} We dismiss as the appealed judgment is not a final appealable order. 
 2

{¶3} A trial court’s judgment is immediately appealable if it constitutes a final 

order. Section 3(B)(2), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution; Gale v. Gale, 11th Dist. Lake 

No. 2019-L-093, 2019-Ohio-5055, ¶ 3. When a lower court’s order is not final, an 

appellate court has no jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. 

v. Ins. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20 (1989). In the absence of other applicable authority 

conferring jurisdiction, as here, a judgment must satisfy R.C. 2505.02 to be final and 

appealable. See Huffman v. Huffman, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2015-L-130, 2016-Ohio-62, ¶ 

4. 

{¶4} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a final order as one of the following: 

{¶5} “(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect 

determines the action and prevents a judgment; 

{¶6} “(2) An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or 

upon a summary application in an action after judgment; 

{¶7} “(3) An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial; 

{¶8} “(4) An order that grants or denies a provisional remedy and to which both 

of the following apply: 

{¶9} “(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional 

remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect 

to the provisional remedy. 

{¶10} “(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective 

remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and 

parties in the action. 
 3

{¶11} “(5) An order that determines that an action may or may not be maintained 

as a class action; 

{¶12} “(6) An order determining the constitutionality of any changes to the Revised 

Code * * *; 

{¶13} “(7) An order in an appropriation proceeding * * *.” 

{¶14} The appealed judgment does not satisfy R.C. 2505.02(B). Accordingly, this 

appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., 

MATT LYNCH, J., 

concur.
-  Home 
        -  About NIDDK 
        -  Staff Directory 
        -  Division of Intramural Research 
        -  Laboratory of Chemical Physics 

Division of Intramural Research
-  Office of Scientific Director 
-  Office of Clinical Director 
-  Fellowship Office 
-  Laboratory of Biochemistry & Genetics 
-  Laboratory of Biological Modeling 
-  Laboratory of Bioorganic Chemistry 
-  Laboratory of Cell & Molecular Biology 
-  Laboratory of Cellular & Developmental Biology 
-  Laboratory of Chemical Physics 
-  Laboratory of Endocrinology & Receptor Biology 
-  Laboratory of Molecular Biology 
-  Biomedical & Metabolic Imaging Branch 
-  Diabetes, Endocrinology, & Obesity Branch 
-  Digestive Disease Branch 
-  Genetics & Biochemistry Branch 
-  Kidney Diseases Branch 
-  Liver Diseases Branch 
-  Metabolic Diseases Branch 
-  Molecular & Clinical Hematology Branch 
-  Molecular Medicine Branch 
-  Phoenix Epidemiology & Clinical Research Branch 
-  Cores & Support Services 

Go to Staff Directory home

# Laboratory of Chemical Physics

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Laboratory of Chemical Physics.

----

## Biophysical Chemistry Section

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Biophysical Chemistry Section.

----

## Biophysical Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Section

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Biophysical Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Section.

----

## Computational Biophysics Section

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Computational Biophysics Section.

----

## Section of Molecular and Structural Biophysics

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Section of Molecular and Structural Biophysics.

----

## Section of Nanoscale Single-Molecule Dynamics

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Section of Nanoscale Single-Molecule Dynamics.

----

## Single-Molecule Biophysics Section

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Single-Molecule Biophysics Section.

----

## Solid-State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Biomolecular Physics Section

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Solid-State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Biomolecular Physics Section.

----

## Ultrafast Biophysical Chemistry Section

Select staff are listed in alphabetical order by last name. Read a description of the Ultrafast Biophysical Chemistry Section.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 750 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow look-through treatment 

of payments between related foreign corporations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2005 

Mr. KYL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow lookthrough treatment of payments between related foreign 

corporations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LOOK-THROUGH TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS 

4 BETWEEN RELATED CONTROLLED FOREIGN 

5 CORPORATIONS UNDER THE FOREIGN PER6 SONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 954(c) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign personal hold9 ing company income) is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following new paragraph: 
2 

•S 750 IS

1 ‘‘(6) LOOK-THRU RULE FOR RELATED CON2 TROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.—For purposes 

3 of this subsection, dividends, interest, rents, and 

4 royalties received or accrued from a controlled for5 eign corporation which is a related person shall not 

6 be treated as foreign personal holding company in7 come to the extent attributable or properly allocable 

8 (determined under rules similar to the rules of sub9 paragraphs (C) and (D) of section 904(d)(3)) to in10 come of the related person which is not subpart F 

11 income. For purposes of this paragraph, interest 

12 shall include factoring income which is treated as in13 come equivalent to interest for purposes of para14 graph (1)(E). The Secretary shall prescribe such 

15 regulations as may be appropriate to prevent the 

16 abuse of the purposes of this paragraph.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years of foreign corpora19 tions ending after January 1, 2005, and to taxable years 

20 of United States shareholders with or within which such 

21 taxable years of foreign corporations end. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SI DIAMOND TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         348,832                   2,636
<SECURITIES>                                   719,376                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  320,518                 184,020
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,000                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,662,813                 779,170
<PP&E>                                       2,002,076                 955,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 564,830                 795,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,943,330                 537,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,018,919               3,174,361
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,100                   1,700
<COMMON>                                        53,906                  45,987
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,825,235              (2,684,185)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,943,330                 537,863
<SALES>                                      6,752,104                 721,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,752,104                 721,841
<CGS>                                          674,380               1,592,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,506,710               4,908,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,260                (185,012)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                (771,515)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,000                 327,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,673,690              (3,557,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   555,556                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,118,134              (3,557,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,118,134              (3,557,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  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 A-Fem Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sasha Afanassiev, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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/ Sasha Afanassiev
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Sasha Afanassiev,
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Date:  November 10, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Greg Grosvenor, Chief Financial Officer, in connection with theReport on Form 10-Q of Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. for the quarterly periodJune 28, 2004, hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              The accompanying Report of Angelo andMaxie’s, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2004fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              The information contained in such Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ GREG GROSVENOR                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Greg Grosvenor                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer           |
|   | Dated:  August 12, 2004 |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. and will beretained by Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 785]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Egan Jr., J.), entered April 14, 2008 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

When this case was previously before this Court, we affirmed the judgment dismissing the petition seeking to annul a tier III disciplinary determination which found petitioner guilty of violating several prison disciplinary rules (38 AD3d 1031 [2007]). Petitioner thereafter moved for reconsideration based upon the existence of alleged newly discovered evidence. Specifically, petitioner asserted that, contrary to what he was advised at the time of his disciplinary hearing, his subsequent criminal case in connection with this incident revealed that there was a log of prison visitors pertaining to the date of the incident. According to petitioner, this log demonstrated that, among other things, he was denied adequate employee assistance in connection with his disciplinary hearing and his waiver of the right to call witnesses during the hearing was not voluntary. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s motion and this appeal ensued.

We initially note that although petitioner did not specifically identify the nature of his motion, it is in the nature of renewal inasmuch as it is premised solely upon the supposed discovery of new evidence *(see Wahl v Grippen,*305 AD2d 707, 707 [2003]). We find that Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s mo*1095tion. Petitioner admitted during his disciplinary hearing that visiting hours were over and nobody else was present in the room with him at the time that the subject incident occurred. Thus, assuming that the visitors log can be considered newly discovered evidence, it would not have led to a different outcome given petitioner’s concession that there were no witnesses to the incident *(see Amodeo v State of New York,*257 AD2d 748, 749 [1999]).

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Kane, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
S. 819

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the Pactola Dam

and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pactola Reservoir Reallocation

Authorization Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that—

(1) it is appropriate to reallocate the costs of the Pactola

Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands

for municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes; and

(2) section 302 of the Department of Energy Organization

Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) prohibits such a reallocation of costs

without congressional approval.

SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF COSTS OF PACTOLA DAM AND RESERVOIR,

SOUTH DAKOTA.

The Secretary of the Interior may, as provided in the contract

of August 2001 entered into between Rapid City, South Dakota,

and the Rapid Valley Conservancy District, reallocate, in a manner

consistent with Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902

(32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.)), the construction costs

of Pactola Dam and Reservoir, Rapid Valley Unit, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, South Dakota, from irrigation purposes to

municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 5, 2014

h0825

Order 

Clerk

September 5, 2014

148419 & (117)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148419

COA: 301384

Genesee CC: 07-021845-FC

TAJUAN MARNEZ WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2013 judgment 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.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 24.3

                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

           The undersigned constitutes and appoints Vincent Hren and William
Crowell, and each of them, her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with
full power of substitution and resubstitution, for her and in her name, place,
and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, for filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with
any and all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits
thereto, and all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of
them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

           DATED:    March 28, 2001



            /s/ Dianne C. Walker
           ---------------------------

           Dianne C. Walker