alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSICA J. MOORE,

Plaintiff, 

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________ __________/

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-13202

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Jessica Moore brings this action challenging the final decision of the

Commissioner denying her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits

and Supplemental Security Income. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge

Michael Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Doc. 4.) Both parties filed

dispositive motions, and in a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated July 15, 2015,

Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary

Judgment be denied and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. 

(Doc. 16.)

 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties

that objections to the R&R needed to be filed within “14 days of service” and that a

party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Id. at p. 24.) 

Neither party has filed an objection.

2:14-cv-13202-MOB-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 08/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 775
Because no objection has been filed in this case, the parties waived their right to

de novo review and appeal. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 14), and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

15). Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 18, 2015 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on August 18, 2015.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13202-MOB-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 08/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 776
§ 129.220 Basic safety. ( a ) Electrical equipment and installations must be suitable for the roll, pitch, and vibration of the vessel under way.
( b ) All equipment, including switches, fuses, and lampholders, must be suitable for the voltage and current used.
( c ) Receptacle outlets of the type providing a grounded pole or a specific direct-current polarity must be of a configuration that does not permit improper connection.
( d ) Electrical equipment and circuits must be clearly marked and identified.
( e ) Any cabinet, panel, box, or other enclosure containing more than one source of power must be fitted with a sign warning persons of this condition and identifying the circuits to be disconnected.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nickolas R. Smock, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pharmacy Buying
Association, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is
      being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

<PAGE>

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 15, 2003


  /s/ Nick Smock
  -----------------------
  Nickolas R. Smock
  Chief Executive Officer
§ 11.454 Requirements for mate of Great Lakes and inland self-propelled vessels of less than 200 GRT. ( a ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as mate of Great Lakes and inland self-propelled vessels of less than 200 GRT is 6 months of service in the deck department of self-propelled vessels. To obtain authority to serve on the Great Lakes, 3 months of the required service must have been on Great Lakes waters; otherwise the endorsement will be limited to the inland waters of the United States (excluding the Great Lakes).
( b ) To obtain an endorsement for sail or auxiliary sail vessels, the applicant must submit evidence of 3 months of service on sail or auxiliary sail vessels.
( c ) A mariner holding an endorsement as master of self-propelled vessels may be endorsed as mate of sail or auxiliary sail vessels upon presentation of 3 months service on sail or auxiliary sail vessels.
( d ) The holder of a license or MMC endorsement as operator of inland uninspected passenger vessels may obtain this endorsement by successfully completing an examination on rules and regulations for small passenger vessels. To obtain authority to serve on the Great Lakes, 3 months of the required service must have been on Great Lakes waters; otherwise the endorsement will be limited to the inland waters of the United States (excluding the Great Lakes).
( e ) To obtain a tonnage endorsement for 100 GRT or more, the applicant must complete the additional examination topics indicated in subpart I of this part.
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 Quarterly Report of First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William W. Harrod, President and 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) 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                                    
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE: November 14, 2008 |  | BY: |  | /s/ William W. Harrod                                              
|                        |  |     |  | William W. Harrod                                                  
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
#### § 126.310 Prerequisite to Certificate of Inspection.

The initial inspection is a prerequisite to the issuance of the original Certificate of Inspection.
§ 11.805 General requirements. ( a ) The applicant for an endorsement as staff officer is not required to take any examination; however, the applicant must present to the Coast Guard a letter justifying the need for the endorsement.
( b ) An applicant for a higher grade in the staff department must apply in the same manner as for an original endorsement and must surrender the previous Coast Guard-issued credentials upon issuance of the new MMC. A staff officer may serve in a lower grade of service for which he or she is registered.
( c ) Title 46 U.S.C. 8302 addresses uniforms for staff officers who are members of the Naval Reserve.
( d ) A duplicate MMC may be issued by the Coast Guard. (See § 10.229 of this subchapter.)
( e ) An MMC is valid for a term of 5 years from the date of issuance. Procedures for renewing endorsements are found in § 10.227 of this subchapter.
( f ) Each applicant for an original or a higher grade of endorsement, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, must produce evidence of having passed a chemical test for dangerous drugs or of qualifying for an exception from testing in § 16.220 of this subchapter. An applicant who fails a chemical test for dangerous drugs will not be issued an MMC.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MINDSPRING ENTERPRISES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,386,312
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,753,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                   750,756
<INVENTORY>                                    136,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,431,000
<PP&E>                                      29,770,538
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,132,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,286,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,782,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,344
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,338,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,286,199
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,556,621
<CGS>                                       16,822,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,301,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,458,498
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             338,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,083,094)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,083,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,083,094)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.54)


</TABLE>
Project Background:

The Former Wilson Packing Plant property consists of three-square city blocks historically used as an auto 

auction facility, a salvage yard and a meat packing plant. A Phase I environmental investigation revealed the 

presence of solvents, refrigerants, metals and petroleum products in the soil and ground water, but the extent 

of contamination was unknown. In May 2006, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) 

conducted a Phase II environmental investigation of the property using $31,299 in EPA Brownfields Section 

128(a) State & Tribal funding revealing possible soil contamination. Additional soil sampling funded by Heritage 

Services concluded that cleanup of the property was not required.

key accomPlishments:

•	 Phase II environmental investigations removed key barriers

impeding the reuse of the property. 

•	 Leveraged $60 million to construct and endow the Salvation Army

Omaha Ray and Joan Kroc Corps Community Center. 

•	 Built in an under-served part of the city, the Center now serves as a

community node and central gathering place. 

outcome:

On March 20, 2007, The Salvation Army awarded $60 million of its $1.6 billion estate gift from philanthropist, 

Joan B. Kroc, to the City of Omaha to build and endow The Salvation Army Omaha Ray and Joan Kroc Corps 

Community Center on the property. Having opened its doors on November 16, 2009, the Community 

Center benefits a traditionally under-served part of the city where individuals, seniors and families now have 

access to educational, recreational, and arts programs. Community Center activities include aquatics, an 

outdoor “festival plaza” for hosting neighborhood events, outdoor soccer fields, a fitness center, and learning/

educational facilities.

An Omaha Community Builds Salvation on a Former Brownfield

brownfields at-a-glance

FORMER WILSON PACKING PLANT Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

128(a) State and Tribal Grant

For additional data and geographic information for this and

other Brownfields Grants, please visit EPA’s Cleanups in

My Community - http://iaspub.epa.gov/Cleanups/

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the EPA Brownfields Web site at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ or call EPA Region 7 at (913) 551-7003

address: 27th Street, “W” Street and 30th Street,

Omaha, Nebraska 68107

ProPerty size: 16 acres

Former use: Auto auction facility, salvage yard and meat packing plant 

current use: Salvation Army Omaha Ray and Joan Kroc Corps 

Community Center

ePa grant reciPient: Project Partners:

City of Omaha, HDR, Inc., 

Omaha Nebraska Salvation 

Army, Heritage Services

The Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality (NDEQ) utilized $31,299 in EPA 

Brownfields Section 128(a) State & Tribal funding.

Award-winning design of the Salvation Army Omaha Ray 

and Joan Kroc Corps Community Center courtesy of 

HDR Architecture.

EPA-560-F-10-228

June 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DARRICK DARNELL LEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3611

[July 28, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Judge;

L.T. Case No. 432013CF000723A.

Brett McIntosh and Kevin M. Griffith, Sarasota, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 2

- NM

- 1 73

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Abraham B. Kain agt. Christian F. Dickel.

*New York Superior Court, Special Term,*

*October,*1873.

A *demurer*cannot be stricken out as sham.

Van Vorst, J.

The defendant has interposed a demurrer to the complaint. ' The ground of demurrer is that the complaint, as appears from the face thereof, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The plaintiff now moves to strike out the demurrer as sham.

The plaintiff has mistaken his remedy.

Section 152 of the Code provides that sham and irrelevant defenses may be stricken out on motion.

A demurrer of this character is not interposed by way of defense. It concedes the allegations of the complaint, and substantially claims that they require no defense; that, notwithstanding their truthfulness, they give the plaintiff no cause of action.

Under the Code, defenses are to be set up by answer (§ 149, *subdivision*2; § 150, *latter part of subdivision*2), and if a defense, so set up, be sham, it may be stricken out under section 152.

A defense applies to any facts which defeat the action wholly or partially *(Stewart*agt. *Travis,*10 *How.,*148; *Houghton*agt. *Townsend,*8 *How.,*441; *Foland*agt. *Johnson,*16 *Abb.,*235).

If there is no just ground for this demurrer, it may be *209treated as frivolous, and the plaintiff’s remedy is under section 247 of the Code.

He may move, on a notice of five days, for judgment thereon, and on such motion the sufficiency of the pleading may be determined.

Motion denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SNELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-13661

Hon. Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s

Report and Recommendation denying the Defendant Commissioner of Social

Security’s Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 12, filed March 25, 2015] To date, no

Objections have been filed to the R&R and the time to file such has passed.

The Commissioner seeks to dismiss the action based on Plaintiff William

Snell’s failure to submit a Motion for Summary Judgment as ordered by the

Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the motion, but

that Plaintiff be sanctioned $500.00 for failure to comply with the Magistrate

Judge’s scheduling order. On the same date as the Report and Recommendation,

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/09/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 340
the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a

Motion for Summary Judgment. Both parties have now submitted their briefs.

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the

Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion that this action should not be

dismissed. As to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on sanctions, it is noted

that this case, along with other cases where the same plaintiff’s counsel was the

attorney of record, was brought before a three-judge panel reviewing certain

matters. The panel has now returned the cases back to the assigned judges. At this

time, the Court declines to issue sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

r. Steven Whalen [Doc. No. 12] is ACCEPTED as to the recommendation to deny

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Dismiss and REJECTED

as to the recommendation to issue sanctions against Plaintiff’s Counsel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social

Security’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: December 9, 2015

2

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/09/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 341
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on December 9, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 18 Filed 12/09/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 342
§ 15.901 Inspected vessels of less than 100 GRT. ( a ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as mate or pilot of inspected, self-propelled vessels of 200 GRT or more is authorized to serve as master on inspected vessels of less than 100 GRT within any restrictions on the individual's license or MMC, without further endorsement.
( b ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as master or mate of inspected self-propelled vessels is authorized to serve as master or mate, respectively, of non-self-propelled vessels other than sail vessels, within any restrictions on the individual's license or MMC, without further endorsement.
( c ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as master or mate of inspected sail vessels is authorized to serve as master or mate, respectively, of other non-self-propelled vessels, within any restrictions on the individual's license or MMC, without further endorsement.
( d ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as master or mate of inspected auxiliary sail vessels, is authorized to serve as master or mate, respectively, of self-propelled and non-self-propelled vessels, within any restrictions on the individual's license or MMC, without further endorsement.
[CGD 81-059, 54 FR 150, Jan. 4, 1989, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11263, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78010, Dec. 24, 2013]
#### § 98.31 Parental access.

The Lead Agency shall have in effect procedures to ensure that providers of child care services for which assistance is provided afford parents unlimited access to their children, and to the providers caring for their children, during normal hours of provider operation and whenever the children are in the care of the provider. The Lead Agency shall provide a detailed description in the Plan of such procedures.

[81 FR 67581, Sept. 30, 2016]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

JILL CARUSO, Individually, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOLIDAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC 

A Domestic Limited Liability Company 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 2:14-cv-13505 

 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, Jill Caruso, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action with prejudice. 

Dated: December 3, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Pete M. Monismith

PETE M. MONISMITH (P78186) 

PETE M. MONISMITH, PC 

3945 Forbes Avenue, 

Suite #175 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 

Telephone: (724) 610-1881 

Facsimile (412) 258-1309 

Pete@monismithlaw.com

2:14-cv-13505-GCS-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 12/04/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal was served upon all parties of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system on December 3, 

2014. 

/s/ Pete M. Monismith

PETE M. MONISMITH (P78186) 

PETE M. MONISMITH, PC 

3945 Forbes Avenue, 

Suite #175 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 

Telephone: (724) 610-1881 

Facsimile (412) 258-1309 

Pete@monismithlaw.com

2:14-cv-13505-GCS-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 12/04/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 23
#### John Hayes, *Respondent, v.*The Forty-second Street and Grand Street Ferry Railroad Company, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.