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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES FITZGERALD AUSTIN,

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12610

Plaintiff,

 DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

v.

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN

PAMALA THOMPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C.

§1983, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #15].

Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment

of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to assist in 

appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6 Cir. 1993), the Sixth th

Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is

a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.” (Internal quotations and

citations omitted).

It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil

rights Plaintiffs until after motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have been

denied. At this point, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is premature. If Plaintiff’s claims

ultimately survive dispositive motions, he may renew his motion for appointment of counsel

-1-

2:14-cv-12610-PDB-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 10/20/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 88
at that time.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

[Docket #15] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/R. Steven Whalen

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: October 20, 2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record

on October 20, 2014, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla

Case Manager to the

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

2:14-cv-12610-PDB-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 10/20/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 89
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
consolidated balance sheet of Lucent at September 30, 2000 and the audited
consolidated statement of income for the year ended September 30, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                       501
<INVENTORY>                                      5,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,490
<PP&E>                                          14,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,877
<BONDS>                                          3,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,792
<SALES>                                         33,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,813
<CGS>                                           19,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   252
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,322
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (462)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,219
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37


</TABLE>
§ 134.100 Applicability. ( a ) This part, as well as parts 125 through 133 of this subchapter, applies to each liftboat of United States flag to which this subchapter applies.
( b ) The design, construction and operating standards for liftboats of at least 6,000 GT ITC (500 GRT if GT ITC is not assigned) must be specially approved by Commandant (CG-5PS).
[USCG-2012-0208, 79 FR 48938, Aug. 18, 2014]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEON CRAWFORD, #691535,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-13499 

v. HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO REMAND TO REOPEN HIS APPEAL OF RIGHT

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner

Deon Crawford (“Petitioner”) was convicted of second-degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS

§ 750.317, felonious assault, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.82, felon in possession of a firearm,

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a

felony, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b, following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit

Court in 2012. He was sentenced to 25 to 50 years imprisonment on the murder

conviction, time served on the felonious assault and felon in possession convictions, and

a consecutive term of five years imprisonment (reduced to two years imprisonment on

appeal) on the felony firearm conviction. The case is currently stayed and administratively

closed to allow Petitioner to return to state court to exhaust additional issues concerning

the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. The matter is now before the Court on

Petitioner’s motion to remand the case to re-open his appeal of right in state court.

Petitioner’s motion must be denied. The provisions cited by Petitioner in support of

2:14-cv-13499-GAD-DRG Doc # 10 Filed 12/30/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 52
his motion are inapplicable to the case at hand. Title 28 U.S.C. §§1447(c) and (d) apply

to removal actions and this is not a removal action. Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) applies

to referral to a federal magistrate judge to hear and determine pretrial matters in cases

pending before the district court. This Court does not have the authority at this stage of the

proceedings to order the Michigan Court of Appeals to re-open his appeal of right and

bypass established procedures for presenting his additional issues to the state courts. 

Rather, Petitioner must follow Michigan law to properly and fully exhaust his additional

issues by filing a motion for relief from judgment with the trial court pursuant to Michigan

Court Rule 6.500 et seq. and then seek leave to appeal before the Michigan Court of

Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court as necessary. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s motion to remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Gershwin A Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 30, 2014

2

2:14-cv-13499-GAD-DRG Doc # 10 Filed 12/30/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 53
(ORDER LIST: 552 U.S.) 

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2008 

APPEAL -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

07-953 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC 

 The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Justice Breyer would affirm the judgment. 

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

07-9256 SANCHEZ, CARLA V. UNITED STATES 

 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. 

 The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United 

 States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further 

 consideration in light of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___ 

 (2007). 

07-9289 WILLIAMS, JONATHAN C. V. UNITED STATES 

 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. 

 The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United 

 States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further 

 consideration in light of Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___ 

 (2007). 

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

07M56 WEBSTER, RODNEY L. V. JOHNSON, DIR., VA DOC 

 The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a 

 writ of certiorari out of time is denied. 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This restated schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's Form 10-Q/A for the nine months ended March 31, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and
accompanying disclosures.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            5,986
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    64,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                        974
<INVENTORY>                                      61,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                148,366
<PP&E>                                          138,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                   66,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  253,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            69,771
<BONDS>                                         100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                         521
<COMMON>                                              2
<OTHER-SE>                                       27,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    253,072
<SALES>                                         230,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                230,074
<CGS>                                           163,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    59,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     88
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8,451
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,699
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6,752
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6,752
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0



</TABLE>
§ 111.30-17 Protection of instrument circuits. ( a ) Each circuit that supplies a device on a switchboard, except a circuit under paragraph (b) of this section, must have overcurrent protection.
( b ) A circuit that supplies a device on a switchboard must not have overload protection if it supplies: ( 1 ) An electric propulsion control;
( 2 ) A voltage regulator;
( 3 ) A ship's service generator circuit breaker tripping control; or
( 4 ) A device that creates a hazard to the vessel if deenergized.
( c ) If short circuit protection is used in any of the circuits listed in paragraph (b) of this section, it must be set at not less than 500% of the expected current.
( d ) A secondary circuit of a current transformer must not be fused, and the circuit from a current transformer to a device that is not in the switchboard must have a high voltage protector to short the transformer during an open circuit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEAH JEANETTE DIPIPPO-BRADLEY,

Plaintiff, 

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________ __________/

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-13167

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 12);

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 13); AND 

REMANDING TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Leah Jeanette Dipippo-Bradley has brought this action challenging the

Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for Disability

Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. 

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Both parties filed dispositive motions, and in a Report and Recommendation

("R&R") dated February 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended that

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that the Commissioner’s

Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. (Doc. 14). 

 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R

needed to be filed within fourteen days of service and that a party’s failure to file

1

2:14-cv-13167-MOB-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 03/31/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 565
objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Id., p. 23). Neither party filed

objections. Because no objections have 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. 14), GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 12), and DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 13). The Court therefore REMANDS Plaintiff’s claim to the

Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 31, 2016 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 March 31, 2016.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13167-MOB-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 03/31/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 566
§ 131.510 Draft and loadline markings. ( a ) The master of each vessel on an ocean or coastwise voyage shall enter in the vessel's logbook the drafts of the vessel, forward and aft, when leaving port.
( b ) The master of each vessel subject to the requirements of subchapter E of this chapter shall, upon departure from port on an ocean or coastwise voyage, enter in the vessel's logbook a statement of the position of the loadline markings, port and starboard, relative to the surface of the water in which the vessel is then floating.
( c ) If the master, when recording drafts, compensates for the density of the water in which the vessel is floating, he or she shall note this density in the vessel's logbook.
# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 46 Technical Corrections; Identification and Listing ofHazardous Waste 53 FR 13382-13393

April 22, 1988 (Non-HSWA Cluster IV)
Note: This checklistmakes extensive technical corrections to the lists of commercial chemical products that are hazardous wastes when discarded (40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f» and to the list ofhazardous constituents (AppendixVIII of40 CFR Part 261). Because these same lists are also addressedby Revision Checklist 29, States mayseek authorization for this checklist without the need to first obtain authorization for Checklist 29. STATE ANALOC IS: FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION EQUIVALENT MORE BROADSTRIN- ER IN GENT SCOPE


# • PART 261 - IDENTIFICATIONAND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OFHAZARDOUS WASTES
DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINERRESIDUES, AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF WAC 173-303 correct specific listings 261.33{e) -9903 X correct specific listings 261.33{f) -9903 X APPENDIXVIII TO PART 261
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS addhazardous waste numbers Appendix VIII WAC 173-303 -9905 (numbers not added)



# • April 22, 1988

- Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Eastern District of Michigan

Jill Caruso,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:14−cv−13504−DML−PJK

Hon. David M. Lawson

Key Hotel & Property Management,

LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: Key Hotel & Property Management, LLC

 A lawsuit has been filed against you.

 Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,

whose name and address are:

Pete M. Monismith

3945 Forbes Ave.

Suite # 175

Pittsburgh, PA

15213

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You

also must file your answer or motion with the court.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT By: s/ D. Peruski 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Date of Issuance: December 1, 2014

2:14-cv-13504-DML-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 12/01/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 36
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

Summons and Complaint Return of Service

Case No. 2:14−cv−13504−DML−PJK

Hon. David M. Lawson

A copy of the Summons and Complaint has been served in the manner indicated below:

Name of Defendant Served: Key Hotel & Property Management, LLC

Date of Service:

Method of Service

Personally served at this address:

Left copies at defendant's usual place of abode with (name of person):

Other (specify):

Returned unexecuted (reason):

Service Fees: Travel $ Service $ Total $ 

Declaration of Server

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Return of Service is true and correct.

Name of Server:

Signature of Server:

Date:

Server's Address:

2:14-cv-13504-DML-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 12/01/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 37
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CARLYLE GREEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2572

[September 25, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562007CF004356A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Carlyle Green previously pled no contest to home invasion 

robbery with a firearm while wearing a mask. He was adjudicated guilty 

and sentenced to fifteen years in prison with a ten-year mandatory 

minimum, followed by five years of probation. Appellant was later charged 

with violating his probation by tampering with evidence. After a revocation 

hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of violating probation. 

The trial court sentenced Appellant to 200 months in prison, followed by 

two years of community control, followed by five years of probation. 

Appellant challenges this judgment and sentence. We affirm in all respects 

except for the written judgment, which we remand for correction of a 

scrivener’s error.

The written judgment entered in this case contains a scrivener’s error 

erroneously showing that Appellant admitted the violation of probation. 

However, Appellant contested the violation, and after a revocation hearing, 

the trial court found he violated his probation. We remand with directions 

to correct the scrivener’s error. See Widel v. State, 120 So. 3d 68, 69 (Fla. 
2

4th DCA 2013); Sirota v. State, 977 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 

Appellant need not be present for this correction. 

Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
3.3  CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.  INVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
(the Corporation), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY: FIRST:The name of the Corporation is InVision Technologies, Inc. Second:The date on which the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
was originally filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware is
September 7, 1990, under the name of Imatron Industrial Products, Inc. THIRD:The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware, adopted resolutions amending its Certificate of
Incorporation as follows (the Amendment): The first paragraph of Article IV shall
be amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: This corporation is
authorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively,
Common Stock and Preferred Stock. 
The total number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issue
is Sixty-Five Million (65,000,000) shares. 
Sixty Million (60,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, each having a
par value of one-tenth of one cent ($.001). 
Five Million (5,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock, each having a
par value of one-tenth of one cent ($.001). FOURTH:Thereafter pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors, the
Amendment was submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation for their
approval, and was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. IN WITNESS
WHEREOF,InVision
Technologies, Inc. has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its
President and attested to by its Secretary this 28th
day of February, 2002. INVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By:/s/  Dr.
Sergio Magistri Dr. Sergio Magistri,
President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

___________________________________

 ) 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, ) 

 ) Civ. No. 1:11-cv-00766 (ABJ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 v. ) 

 ) NOTICE 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

NOTICE OF DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

The Federal Election Commission hereby advises that it will not appeal the Court’s order 

of March 30, 2012 (Doc. No. 49). 

Respectfully submitted, 

Anthony Herman (D.C. Bar No. 424643) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

Holly J. Baker 

Attorney 

/s/ Seth Nesin

Seth Nesin 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

April 26, 2012 Fax: (202) 219-0260 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 60 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors
of Gum Tech International, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Gum Tech International, Inc. and any amendments thereto (1) No.
333-06199 on Form S-8; (2) No. 333-34019 on Form S-8; (3) No. 333-28821 on Form
S-3; (4) No. 333-38555 on Form S-3; (5) No. 333-82253 on Form S-3; (6) No.
333-91679 on Form S-3 and (7) No. 333-30194 on Form S-3, of our report dated
February 8, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Gum Tech
International, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and changes in stockholders'
equity for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, which report
appears or is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Gum Tech International, Inc.


                                        /s/ Angell & Deering


Denver, Colorado
March 28, 2002