alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State ex rel. West, Appellant, *v.*McDonnell, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. West v. McDonnell,*139 Ohio St.3d 120, 2014-Ohio-1563.]

(No. 2013-0952

Submitted November 19, 2013

Decided April 17, 2014.)

*121Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Timothy West (“West”), and his brother, Todd West, filed separate, nearly identical actions in the Eighth District Court of Appeals, each seeking a writ of prohibition against respondent-appellee, Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy McDonnell. The court of appeals granted Judge McDonnell’s motion to dismiss both actions. The brothers filed separate, timely appeals with this court.

{¶ 2} Because the facts surrounding the brothers’ convictions and the forfeiture of their property are nearly identical, we adopt the facts set forth in our opinion in Todd West’s case, *State ex rel. West v. McDonnell,*139 Ohio St.3d 115, 2014-Ohio-1562, 9 N.E.3d 1025, as the facts in this case. For the same reasons that we rejected Todd West’s two propositions of law, which are identical to Timothy West’s first two propositions of law, we also reject Timothy West’s first two propositions of law.

{¶ 3} In his third proposition of law, West objects to the manner in which court costs have been assessed against him. Specifically, West objects to the alleged failure of the clerk of courts to provide him with a copy of an itemized bill. Assuming that this is a proper matter to raise in this appeal, we nevertheless reject West’s argument.

{¶ 4} The clerk of the court of common pleas is required to prepare an itemized bill of costs upon the rendition of any judgment. R.C. 2303.28. The clerk cannot issue an execution for costs unless an itemized statement has been rendered. Id.; *see also*R.C. 2335.19(C).

{¶ 5} Pursuant to R.C. 2303.03(A), the clerk of the court of common pleas also serves as clerk of courts for the court of áppeals.

{¶ 6} According to West, the cost bill sent by the clerk of courts was not itemized. However, West failed to submit a copy of the cost bill for the court’s review. The appellate court record does contain a statement of costs, but it is unclear if this is the same document of which West complains.

{¶ 7} Moreover, West has not alleged that the clerk of courts has issued a certificate of judgment against him for those costs or undertaken any collection attempts. Therefore, his objection is premature at best.

{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

*122Timothy West, pro se.

Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
EXHIBIT 31.3


     CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Kobi Alexander, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Comverse
Technology, Inc., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Comverse Technology,
     Inc.; and

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report.

Date:  April 20, 2005
                                                   /s/ Kobi Alexander
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Kobi Alexander
                                                   Chairman and CEO
                                                   Principal Executive Officer
#### MING ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-5251-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 20, 2010.

Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director; Don G. Scroggin, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation; U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Ming Zhu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an November 30, 2009, decision of the BIA affirming the decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth A. Lamb, which denied Zhu’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Ming Zhu,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2009), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City March 25, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” *Zaman v. Mukasey,*514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008). The applicable standards of review are well-established. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *see also Corovic v. Mukasey,*519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.2008); *Bah v. Mukasey,*529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008).

The agency did not err in finding that Zhu had failed to demonstrate his eligibility for asylum. The agency correctly relied on binding precedent in finding that the alleged forced sterilization of Zhu’s wife did not render Zhu *per se*eligible for asylum. *See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.2007) *(en*banc) (holding that an individual is not *per se*eligible for asylum based on the forced abortion or sterilization of a spouse or partner because “applicants can become candidates for asylum relief only based on persecution that they themselves have suffered or must suffer”). Similarly, the agency did not err in finding that conceiving a second child with his wife did not constitute an act of “other resistance” to China’s family planning policy so as to render Zhu eligible for asylum. *See Mat*
      *599
      *ter of S-L-L-,*24 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2006). Because Zhu failed to demonstrate “other resistance,” we need not reach the issue of the fíne; the fine cannot be “persecution” within the meaning of the Act, because it was not imposed on account of Zhu’s “other resistance.” *See*8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal "Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
**FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003**

**EXHIBIT31.01**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO – PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Thomas V. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Caraustar;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. Caraustar’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Caraustar and have:

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of Caraustar’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in Caraustar’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Caraustar’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, Caraustar’s internal control over financial reporting; and

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

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

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inCaraustar’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

|                  |   |      |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------|
| Date: August 12, 2003 |   | By:  | /s/ THOMAS V. BROWN |
|                  |   |      | ***President and Chief******Executive Officer******* |
2014- 1063.

#### Taft v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2011-3401. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for mediation, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. The court refers this case to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01, and stays all filing deadlines for this case until further order of this court. The court will not issue any decision on the merits of this case until mediation has concluded.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - [GSA Bulletin FPMR D-259]

This notice contains GSA Bulletin FPMR D-259 which announces the designation of a park on Federal grounds. The text of the bulletin follows:

To: Heads of Federal Agencies

Subject: Designation of Federal Building Grounds

                    1.                     *Purpose.*                     This bulletin announces the designation of a park on Federal grounds.                

                    2.                     *Expiration date.*                     This bulletin expires May 11, 2002. However, the Federal building grounds designation announced by this bulletin will remain in effect until canceled or superseded.                

                    3.                     *Designation.*                     The grounds directly in front of the John M. Shaw United States Courthouse in Lafayette,                           ( print page 67257)                        Louisiana, to be used as a park, are designated as follows: Richard J. Putnam Park, on the grounds of the John M. Shaw United States Courthouse, 800 Lafayette Street, Lafayette, LA 70501.                

Dated: December 19, 2001.

Stephen A. Perry,

Administrator of General Services.

[FR Doc. 01-31883  Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-24-M
EXHIBIT 31.1


ACCUIMAGE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Aviel Faliks, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of AccuImage Diagnostics Corp;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

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

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

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial  reporting that occurred during the small business  issuer's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

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

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

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


Date: March 16, 2004         /s/ AVIEL FALIKS
                             ___________________________
                                 Aviel Faliks
                                 Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, John F. Brock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that: 

(1) to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

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

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, 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 Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and will be retainedby Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,046,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                   193,503
<INVENTORY>                                    709,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,794,407
<PP&E>                                       3,920,512
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,237,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,641,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,810,325
<BONDS>                                      1,475,284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       117,953
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,641,853
<SALES>                                      4,594,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,594,968
<CGS>                                        3,535,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  987,921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             177,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (58,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,037
<DISCONTINUED>                                (58,342)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,342)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**Certification      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.      Section 1350**

**as      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|   | (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 Merriman****Chairman                        and Chief Executive Officer**   |

|   |                                                                                                        |                                               |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                                                               | /s/ JOHN                          D. HIESTAND |
|   | **John                            D. Hiestand****Chief                            Financial Officer**  |

----
Large Trucks & Buses 

by the Numbers

Fatal Large Truck and Bus Crash

Fatal Bus Crash

Fatal Large Truck Crash

Crash Type:

Interstate Highway

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

• Commercial motor vehicles logged about 

300 billion vehicle miles traveled across 

the U.S. in 2014.

• Of the 6 million vehicle crashes that occurred 

 in the U.S. in 2014, 476,000 involved large 

trucks and buses — an 18% increase from 

the previous year. 

• 13% of all highway fatalities in 2014 were 

in crashes involving a large truck or bus; 

6% of all highway-related injuries involved 

crashes with a large truck or bus; and 61% 

of all fatal crashes involving large trucks 

occur on rural roads.

• 7 out of 10 people killed in crashes 

involving large trucks are occupants of 

the other vehicles.

• 30% of fatal work zone crashes involved at 

least one large truck, a rate that is significantly 

higher than the 11% of all fatal crashes that 

involve at least one truck.

• 37% of all fatal crashes, 19% of all injury 

crashes, and 20% of all property damage 

only crashes involving large trucks occurred 

at night (6:00pm-6:00am).

• 84% of fatal crashes and 88% of nonfatal 

crashes involving large trucks occurred on 

weekdays (Monday-Friday).

• Bicyclists and pedestrians made up 9.4% 

of people killed in crashes involving large 

trucks in 2014.

Get more safety tips and resources to share by visiting the 

Our Roads, Our Safety website: www.sharetheroadsafely.gov.

 

 

FMCSA-ADO-17-020
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ qcourt of §ppeaIs'

for tbe jfeberaI Qtircuit

JOHN A. BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent.

2012-3118

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. AT0752110629-I-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Department of the Army moves without opposition for a 30-day extension of time, until December 14,

2012, to file its response brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Case: 12-3118 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 11/28/2012
JOHN BROWN V. ARMY

The motion is granted.

s27

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 12-3118 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 11/28/2012