alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael P. GRAFMULLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph WEGNER, Director, Air Force Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7268.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

*134Michael P. Grafmuller, Appellant Pro Se.

Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael P. Grafmuller appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R.CÍV.P. 60(b)(4) motion to vacate his prior criminal convictions by a general court martial and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Grafmuller may challenge his criminal judgment. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, 81; *United States v. Mosavi,*138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (“Rule 60(b) simply does not provide relief from judgment in a criminal case.”). We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The State ex rel. Jackim, Appellant, *v.*Ambrose, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose,*118 Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182.]

*513(No. 2008-0168

Submitted June 24, 2008

Decided July 2, 2008.)

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ of prohibition to prevent a common pleas court judge from proceeding with a second trial in a criminal case based on the appellant’s claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated in the original prosecution. Because the speedy-trial claim is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ case, we affirm.

{¶ 2} In July 2003, appellant, Bruce A. Jackim, was indicted on one count of felonious assault of a police officer, one count of assault on a police officer, and one count of resisting arrest. Jackim subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the case based on a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial. Following a jury trial, Jackim was convicted of assault of a police officer and resisting arrest and was sentenced to a six-month suspended jail sentence and one year of community control.

{¶ 3} On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County reversed the judgment because the common pleas court had erred in granting a motion in limine excluding a surveillance videotape as well as reference to it at trial. *State v. Jackim,*Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87012 and 87400, 2006-Ohio-4756, 2006 WL 2639444. The court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial and ruled that Jackim’s other claims were rendered moot because of the court’s ruling. Id. at ¶ 21.

{¶ 4} On remand, Jackim again filed a motion to dismiss the case based upon a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial.

{¶ 5} In December 2007, Jackim filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Judge Richard J. Ambrose of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, from proceeding with Jackim’s retrial because of the claimed speedy-trial violation.

{¶ 6} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The claim that Jackim was denied his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ proceeding. *State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci,*115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-4795, 874 N.E.2d 774, ¶ 6 (prohibition); *State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner,*105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2004-Ohio-1735, 825 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 7 (mandamus); *Tisdale v. Eberlin,*114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 7 (habeas corpus). He has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise this claim. *Pesci,*at ¶ 6. Appeal following final judgment is not rendered inadequate due to the potential time and *514expense involved. *State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott*(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 11, 17, 706 N.E.2d 765.

Catherine M. Brady, for appellant.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and T. Allan Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 7} We find no persuasive reason to depart from this well-settled precedent in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PAUL JUDGE, * No. 14

- 1113V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

*

v. *

* Filed: October 13, 2015

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Stipulation; Hepatitis A vaccine;

* Hepatitis B vaccine; DTaP; GBS.

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mindy Roth

, Britcher, Leone & Roth LLC

, Glen Rock

, NJ , for Petitioner;

Camille M. Collett , U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On October 13

, 201 5 , the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the

petition for compensation filed by Paul Judge on November 14, 2014 . In h is

petition, petitioner alleged that the hepatitis A, hepatitis B, t yphoid, and diphtheria

tetanus

- acellur pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine s, which are contained in the Vaccine

Injury Table (the “Table”), 2 42 C .F.R. §100.3(a), and which P aul Judge received

on or about June 8 , 201 2 , caused him to develop Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS),

with residual effects lasting more than six months. Petitioner represents that there

has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on his b ehalf as

a result of his condition.

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.

2 Except the typhoid vaccine, which is not covered by the Vaccine Injury Table.2

Respondent denies that any of the vaccines that petitioner received either

caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s GBS or any other injury or

condition

.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stip ulation, attached hereto as

Appendix A. The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the

decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum paym ent of $ 165,000.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner, Paul Judge. This amount represents compensation for all

damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appen dix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in cas e 14

- 1113 V according to this decision

and the attached stipulation. 3

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk

, Dan Hoffman , at (202) 357

-

6 360

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

3 Purs uant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal

Claims judge.
103 A.3d 1216

#### IN THE MATTER OF FRED M. LAX, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 012151995).

December 12, 2014.

ORDER

FRED M. LAX of ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since December 21, 2011, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that FRED M. LAX is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing or hereinafter deposited in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by FRED M. LAX pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court for good cause shown and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel RUIZ-DEL VALLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40372

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Manuel Ruiz-Del Valle has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Ruiz-Del Valle has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is ex*915cused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### STATE ex rel. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF REGISTERED DENTISTS v. DIXON.

No. 33771.

Sept. 26, 1950.

222 P. *2d 756.*

*411Wheeler & Wheeler, of Tulsa, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, and First Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Logan Stephenson, F. C. Swindell, and O. C. Lassiter, all of Tulsa, for defendant.

ARNOLD, V. C. J.

By his petition filed herein Dr. P. F. Dixon seeks a review by this court of the jurisdiction of the Board of Governors of the Registered Dentists of Oklahoma to make and enter its order and judgment of July 25, 1948, suspending his license to practice dentistry in the State of Oklahoma (59 O. S. 1941 §279).

An examination of the record discloses that the question now presented is identical with that presented to and determined by us in the recent case of Board of Governors, Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, v. C. E. Rifleman, 203 Okla. 294, 220 P. 2d 441. The order and judgment here complained of was entered on the same day as in the Rifleman case and was based upon the findings and report of the same committee reflecting its proceedings herein at the same time and place as in the above-cited case.

We do not deem it necessary to do more than refer to our opinion in that case for an expression of our views on the question involved.

Judgment reversed.

CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

**1331PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW**

**SUITE520N**

**WASHINGTON,DC  20004**

** **

 

 

October  20, 2014

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2014

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (entry from    F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Secretary of Labor v. BlackBeauty Coal Co.,* Docket Nos. LAKE 2008-378-R, et al.**(Issues includewhether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that the resumption ofmining in an area following  a roof fall in that area constituted a violationand whether an on-shift examination of another area was required.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.  Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson       (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339for toll free.
Exhibit
32.1





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 Annual Report of Secured Income L.P. (the “Registrant”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Paul Richman,
Chief Executive Officer of Wilder Richman Resources Corporation, a general
partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




/s/Richard Paul RichmanRichard
      Paul RichmanChief
      Executive Officer of Wilder RichmanResources
      Corporation, a general partner ofthe
      RegistrantMarch
      30, 2010
|                                  |  |                                
|--------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Information Analysis Incorporated |  | 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Sandor Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer of Information Analysis Incorporated, a Virginia corporation (the Company), do
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1 | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (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 result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                              
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 31, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ Sandor Rosenberg                         
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Sandor Rosenberg, Chairman of the            
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Information Analysis Incorporated and will be retained by Information Analysis Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request
EX-10.1 AMENDMENT TO 1992 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE



 





Exhibit 10.1




Amendment No. 2

to the

1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan




     WHEREAS, C-COR Incorporated (the “Corporation”) implemented an Employee Stock Purchase Plan
(the “Plan”) in 1992 to secure for the Corporation and its shareholders the benefits of the
incentive which an interest in the ownership of shares of common stock of the Corporation will
provide to its employees;



     WHEREAS, on September 23, 2007, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the “Agreement”) with Arris Group, Inc. and Air Merger Subsidiary, Inc. pursuant to which the
Corporation will merge with and into Air Merger Subsidiary, Inc.



     WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Corporation has agreed to assure that the Plan be
suspended as soon as permitted by the terms of the Plan and there shall not be an additional
Offering Period; and



     WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meanings set forth in
the Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     1. The Offering Period that is due to begin on October 1, 2007 shall not be initiated and all
future Offering Periods shall be suspended until such time that the Board of Directors of the
Corporation adopts a resolution to initiate an Offering Period.



     2. Participant Payroll Deductions shall be suspended effective October 1, 2007, or as soon as
practicable thereafter. If any Payroll Deductions are made after October 1, 2007, the Corporation
shall promptly refund such amounts to the Participant. The appropriate officers of the Corporation
are empowered to determine when and if Payroll Deductions may resume, and to promulgate rules
regarding whether the Payroll Deduction elections will be superseded or reinstated.



     IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan is amended effective this 28th day of
September 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	

C-COR INCORPORATED

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ William T. Hanelly
 	 
	 	 	William T. Hanelly 	 
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.0

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 Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                     
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|August 6, 2009 |  | /s/ David T. Blair                  
|               |  | David T. Blair                      
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
|               | 
|               |  | /s/ Hai V. Tran                     
|               |  | Hai V. Tran                         
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer             



26
#### Peleg, Appellant, *v.*Spitz et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Peleg v. Spitz,*118 Ohio St.3d 446, 2008-Ohio-3176.]

(No. 2008-0182

Submitted May 5, 2008

Decided July 2, 2008.)

Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., and David W. Neel, for appellant.

Gallagher Sharp, Timothy J. Fitzgerald, and Catherine Fazio, for appellees.

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger,*118 Ohio St.3d 226, 2008-Ohio-2012, 887 N.E.2d 1167.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00057

- CV

FORT WORTH WEST SIDE , LTD

D/B/A FORT WORTH WES T SIDE

CAMPUS OF CARE APPELLANT

V.

KIRSTIE IRWIN, INDIV IDUALLY

AND AS REPRESENTATIV E OF

THE ESTATE OF JIMMIE JOYCE

LEDDY, DECEA SED APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 352ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 352

- 272365

- 14

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered “ Appellant Fort Worth West Side, Ltd. ’ s Unopposed

Motion To Dismiss Appellate Proceedings .” It is the court ’ s opinion that the

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 30 , 2015
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:                                                     | /s/ D. JONATHAN    MERRIMAN |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|   | D.      Jonathan MerrimanChief Executive      Officer   |

|   | By:                                           | /s/ PETER V.COLEMAN |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|   | Peter      V. ColemanChief Financial      Officer  |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Obsidian Enterprises,
Inc. (the  "Company")  certifies  that the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended January 31, 2003, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on
Form 10-Q/A,  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and the information  contained in that Form
10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 25, 2003               /s/ Timothy S. Durham
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Timothy S. Durham,
                                     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


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 Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.