alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

128993 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver (47) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, NELLIE SCHULTZ and Justices JAMES SCHULTZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 128993 COA: 252643 Wayne CC: 03-314226-NO HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEMS, d/b/a RIVERSIDE OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of December 8, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

l0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
§ 406.127 Complaint and answer in civil penalty adjudications. ( a ) *Complaint* — ( 1 ) *Filing.* The complainant must file the original and one copy of the complaint with the Federal Docket Management System, or may file a written motion pursuant to 406.141(f)(1) instead of filling a complaint, not later than 20 days after receipt by the complainant of a request for hearing. The complainant should suggest a location for the hearing when filing the complaint.
( 2 ) *Service.* The complainant must personally deliver or mail a copy of the complaint to the respondent, or the respondent's attorney or representative who has filed a notice of appearance in accordance with § 406.107.
( 3 ) *Contents of complaint.* The final notice of proposed civil penalty issued under § 406.9(d) may be filed as the complaint. A complaint must set forth the following in sufficient detail to provide notice: ( i ) The facts alleged.
( ii ) Any requirement of the Act, a regulation issued under the Act, or any term or condition of a license or permit issued or transferred under the Act allegedly violated by the respondent.
( iii ) The proposed civil penalty.
( b ) *Answer* — ( 1 ) *Time for filing.* The respondent must file an answer to the complaint, or may file a written motion pursuant to § 406.141(f)(2) instead of filing an answer, not later than 30 days after service of the complaint.
( 2 ) *Form.* The answer must be in writing. The answer may be in the form of a letter but must be dated and signed by the person responding to the complaint. The answer must be legible, and may be handwritten, typed, or printed from a computer.
( 3 ) *Filing and service.* A respondent must file the answer with the Federal Docket Management System and serve a copy of the answer on the agency attorney who filed the complaint.
( 4 ) *Contents of answer* — ( i ) *Specific denial of allegations required.* The respondent must admit, deny, or state that the respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny, each numbered paragraph of the complaint. Any statement or allegation contained in the complaint that is not specifically denied in the answer constitutes an admission of the truth of that allegation. An administrative law judge shall treat a general denial of the complaint as a failure to file an answer.
( ii ) *Affirmative defenses.* The answer must specifically state any affirmative defense that the respondent asserts.
( iii ) *Request for relief.* The answer may include a brief statement of any relief requested.
( iv ) *Hearing location.* The respondent should suggest a location for the hearing when filing the answer.
( 5 ) *Failure to file answer.* A respondent's failure to file an answer without good cause constitutes an admission of the truth of each allegation contained in the complaint.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-8607, 66 FR 2180, Jan. 10, 2001, as amended by Amdt. 406-4, 72 FR 17017, Apr. 6, 2007; 72 FR 68476, Dec. 5, 2007]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6308

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH REDDICK, a/k/a Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-92-238, CA-97-271-6)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Reddick, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Reddick, Nos. CR-92-238; CA-97-271-6 (M.D.N.C.

Jan. 7, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John T. Stafford, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, 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.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ John T. Stafford                                   
|                        |  |     |  | John T. Stafford, President and Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 99.1



              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code


         I, H. Wayne Posey, Chief Executive Officer of InterDent, Inc., certify
that (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of InterDent, Inc.




                                                     \s\ H. WAYNE POSEY
                                                     H. Wayne Posey
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-25-2008

Magoni-Detwiler v. Bloomingdale

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-3712

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Magoni-Detwiler v. Bloomingdale" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 489.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/489
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 07-3712

_____________

JENNIFER MAGONI-DETWILER,

 Appellant

 v.

RICHARD W. BLOOMINGDALE, CHAIR PERSON UNEMPLOYMENT

COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; EILEEN B. MELVIN, MEMBER

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; LARRY DUNN,

MEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW; WILLIAM

HAWKINS, MEMBER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW;

EDWARD P. RAWLINGS, CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR; STEPHEN SCHMERIN,

SECRETARY OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(06-cv-0490406)

(Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno)

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 8, 2008

Before: Scirica, McKee and

Smith, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 25, 2008 )
2

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKee, Circuit Judge

Jennifer Magoni-Detwiler appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint in the

suit she brought against numerous defendants after she was denied unemployment

compensation. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

In his thoughtful and well reasoned Memorandum, Judge Robreno

thoroughly explained why this complaint could not survive the defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Since nothing need be added to the district court’s careful analysis, we will

affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in that Memorandum.
/* WordPerfect WARNING - No Equivalent EDGAR Representation */
/* WordPerfect Structure - Footer B Beginning */
098888-8001-02930-A13V8BQ6-EDG03/30/01   4:13 PM
/* WordPerfect Structure - Footer B Ending */

/* WordPerfect WARNING - No Equivalent EDGAR Representation */
/* WordPerfect Structure - Header A Beginning */
     Text Limit >     Table Limit >
         1         2         3         4         5         6         7
8         9        10        11        12        13
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012

/* WordPerfect Structure - Header A Ending */
                                                               Exhibit 21.1

               SUBSIDIARIES OF GRAHAM PACKAGING HOLDINGS COMPANY
NAME:
----
Graham Packaging Company, L.P.
GPC Capital Corp. I
GPC Capital Corp. II
GPC OPCO GP LLC
GPC Sub GP LLC
Graham Packaging Canada Limited
Graham Packaging France Partners
Graham Packaging France, S.A.S.
Graham Packaging Italy, S.r.L.
LIDO Plast-Graham SRL
Societa Imballagi Plastici, S.r.L.
Graham Packaging Poland, L.P.
Masko Graham Spolka Z.O.O.
Graham Recycling Company, L.P.
Graham Packaging Latin America, LLC
Graham Brasil Participacoes Ltda.
Graham Packaging do Brasil Industria e Comercio S.A.
Graham Packaging U.K. Ltd.
Graham Packaging Deutschland GmbH
Graham Plastpak Plastik Ambalaj A.S.
Graham Packaging Europe S.A.S.
Graham Emballages Plastiques S.A.
Resin Rio Comercio Ltda.
Graham Packaging Argentina S.A.
Graham Packaging Company de Venezuela, C.A.
Lido Plast San Luis S.A.
PlasPET Florida, Ltd.
Graham Innopack de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.
Graham Packaging Belgium S.A.
Graham Packaging Iberica S.L.


JURISDICTION AND TYPE OF FORMATION:
----------------------------------
Delaware limited partnership
Delaware corporation
Delaware corporation
Delaware limited liability company
Delaware limited liability company
Ontario corporation
Pennsylvania general partnership
French corporation
Italian limited liability company
Argentine limited liability company
Italian limited liability company
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

Pennsylvania limited partnership
Polish limited liability company
Pennsylvania limited partnership
Delaware limited liability company
Brazilian limited liability company
Brazilian corporation
England & Wales corporation
German limited liability company
Turkish corporation
French corporation
French corporation
Brazilian limited liability company
Argentine corporation
Venezuelan corporation
Argentine corporation
Florida limited partnership
Mexico limited liability company
Belgium corporation
Spain limited liability company





























                                      -2-
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11543]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Managment

[CA-5101ER A173; CACA-41878]


Proposed Plan Amendment

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) has proposed a plan amendment to the California Desert 
Conservation Area Plan (1980) to partially exempt a proposed fiber 
optic cable right-of-way from designated utility corridors.

DATES: Written scoping comments must be received no later than June 13, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Written scoping comments should be addressed to the District 
Manager, El Paso Fiber Optic Cable, California Desert, 6221 Box Springs 
Blvd., Riverside, California 92507.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Williams (909) 697-5390.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: El Paso Energy Communication Co. has 
proposed to construct a buried fiber optic cable from Texas, through 
New Mexico, Arizona and terminating in Los Angles, California. The 
cable is inside a six inch conduit and is proposed to be place within 
or alongside existing roads and highways in a one foot wide 42 inch 
deep trench. The California portion begins at the City of Blythe and 
proceeds northwest along the Midland Road to its intersection with 
State Highway 62 where it proceeds west along side the highway to east 
of the City of Twentynine Palms where proceeds westerly on roads to 
State Highway 247. The fiber optic cable then continues west along 
State Highway 47, then State Highway 18, then State Highway 138 and 
then State Highway 14 into Los Angeles. The proposed right-of-way is a 
permanent 10 feet with a temporary 15 feet for construction purpose. 
The proposed right-of-way is not within a designated California Desert 
Plan (1980) utility corridor and, therefore, does not conform to the 
Desert Plan. A plan amendment is required to exempt it from the Desert 
Plan utility corridors.

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Douglas Romoli,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-11543 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-U
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

and the Chief Financial Officer

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 Cost
Plus, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 1, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry J. Feld, Chief Executive Officer and President, and
Jane L. Baughman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Barry J. Feld                                                                                         
|Barry J. Feld Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)                            
|                                                                                                             
|September 3, 2009                                                                                            
|                                                                                                             
|/s/    Jane L. Baughman                                                                                      
|Jane L. Baughman Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
|                                                                                                             
|September 3, 2009
#### Fahey v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.

*Louis S. Fine,*for plaintiffs.

*James L. Stern,*for defendant.

October 31, 1958.

Alessandroni, P. J.,

Plaintiffs’ action in trespass arose out of an accident which occurred on February 21, 1957; wife-plaintiff was injured while she was a passenger on one of defendant’s buses. On the following day, wife-plaintiff gave and signed a written statement to an investigator employed by defendant. The complaint in trespass was filed in January 1958, approximately 11 months after the action accrued; defendant answered.

Defendant propounded interrogatories to plaintiffs. The interrogatories were not answered because as a prior condition plaintiffs demanded a copy of wife-plaintiff’s statement to defendant’s'employe.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for an order compelling defendant to produce the statement.

Defendant’s refusal is based on the provision of Pa. R. C. P. 4011(d) ; this rule prohibits discovery which would disclose the existence or location of documents, reports, etc., made or secured in anticipation of litiga*556tion or which would obtain any such documents, reports, etc., from a party, person or agent or any of them.

“Anticipation of litigation” in the provision of rule 4011(d) is a broad concept. The statement of wife-plaintiff after the accrual of the cause of action must certainly be considered to be within the provisions of the rule. We encounter here the all too frequent cat- and-mouse game and sparring for tactical position. On the one hand, plaintiff knows or should know how the accident happened and presumably gave a true statement of the occurrence. Thus there being but one true version of the accident, she cannot be in doubt as to the simple details. What purpose would be served by demanding a copy of the statement she gave defendant’s agent? On the other hand, how could defendant be prejudiced by furnishing plaintiff with a copy? Indeed, it might be helpful to defendant in such cases to leave a copy with the declarant not only as an act of good faith but as well to keep plaintiff informed exactly of what she said, when the facts should be clear in her mind.

Our view coincides with the observation of Judge Montgomery in Perkins v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 6 D. & C. 2d 655, 656: “Otherwise, it would appear that defendant’s motive is not to obtain aid in the preparation of its case but rather to place plaintiff in an unfavorable tactical position.”

However reluctantly, we feel bound by the plain language of the rules. Plaintiff’s statement was clearly secured in “anticipation of litigation”. Perkins v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., supra, is distinguishable on its facts.

*Order*

And now, to wit, October 81,1958, plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant to produce wife-plaintiff’s statement is dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.40 Registration expiration and renewal. ( a ) *Initial Registration.* A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued in accordance with § 47.31 expires seven years after the last day of the month in which it is issued.
( b ) *Renewal.* Each holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, containing an expiration date may apply for renewal of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration by submitting an Aircraft Registration Renewal Application, AC Form 8050-1B, and the fee required by § 47.17 during the six months preceding the expiration date for the Certificate of Aircraft Registration. ( 1 ) A Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under this paragraph after January 23, 2023 expires seven years after the last day of the month in which it was issued.
( 2 ) A Certificate of Aircraft Registration that is in effect on January 23, 2023 expires seven years after the last day of the month in which it is issued, notwithstanding the expiration date on the valid Certificate of Aircraft Registration.
( c ) *Inaccurate Information.* The Administrator may require the owner of a registered aircraft to submit a complete Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, and fee prior to the expiration date if the Administrator finds that the Certificate of Aircraft Registration contains inaccurate information.
[Amdt. 47-33, 87 FR 71218, Nov. 22, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26207-26208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11406]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 10, 2000.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered:   

Discussion Agenda

    1. Publication for comment of proposed new Regulation G (Disclosure 
and Reporting of CRA Related Agreements) to implement the Community 
Reinvestment Act sunshine requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
    2. Proposed new Regulation P (Privacy of Consumer Financial 
Information) to implement the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 
that govern the protection and disclosure by financial institutions of 
nonpublic personal information about consumers (proposed earlier for 
public comment; Docket No. R-1058).
    3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

    Note: This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those 
unable to attend. Cassettes will be available for listening in the 
Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies may be ordered for 
$6 per cassette by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of

[[Page 26208]]

Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, Washington, DC 20551.


Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded 
announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site 
at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The 
Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open 
meeting.)

    Dated: May 3, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-11406 Filed 5-3-00; 12:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P