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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL POKLADEK, 

 

 Petitioner, Civil No. 2:14-CV-13602

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEWAYNE BURTON,

Respondent.

___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

Michael Pokladek filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

in which he challenged the revocation of his probation on his conviction of attempted fleeing and

eluding a police officer, third-degree, Mich. Comp. Laws 257.602a(3)(a). The Court denied as

moot the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because petitioner had been discharged from

custody. Pokladek v. Burton, No. 2:14-CV-13602, 2016 WL 393167 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2016).

Petitioner has filed a motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus to a petition

for a writ of error. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

The Court assumes that petitioner is asking that his petition be amended to a petition for a

writ of error coram nobis. “[A] writ of error coram nobis is not the proper procedural vehicle to

contest a state court conviction in federal court.” Burkhart v. Ohio, 755 F. 2d 931 (Table); 1985

WL 12872, * 1 (6th Jan. 22, 1985)(citing Blake v. State of Florida, 395 F.2d 758 (5th Cir.

1968)). Thus, petitioner cannot use a petition for writ of coram nobis to obtain relief from his

conviction or probation violation.

1

2:14-cv-13602-PDB-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/23/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 189
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to amend the petition [Dkt. # 20] is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 23, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or

party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on February 23, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13602-PDB-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 02/23/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 190
July 9 , 2015

Mr. W illiam Lewis

1507 Military Cutoff Rd. #108

W ilmington, N C 28403

Dear Mr. Lewis :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your June 30 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 2575 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, h ow it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any ques tions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense; Defense Acquisition University.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The next meeting of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Board of Visitors (BoV) will be held at Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA. The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the BoV on continuing items of interest.

# DATES:

May 2, 2007 from 0900-1500.

# ADDRESSES:

Packard Conference Center, Defense Acquisition University, Bldg. 184, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134.

Dated: April 12, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

[FR Doc. 07-1907 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,928,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              152,760,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             275,421,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,762,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               275,421,724
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            60,392,343
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,006,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,579,831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          14,436,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,385,954
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,310,170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,075,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,075,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95
        

</TABLE>
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Clinical Supplement #2

Choosing a Wheelchair System

CONTENTS

viii Editor's Note

iX Foreword

Part I. Clinical Perspectives on Wheelchair Selection

An Ovorvievv . . .xxith Reflections Past and Present of a Consumer

L ynn Phillips and Angelo Nicosia

8 Prescription Considerations and a Comparison of Conventional and Lightweight

Wheelchairs

Kristjan T. Ragnarsson, MD

17 Factors in Functional Assessment

Andrea L. Behrman, MS PT

31 A Participatory Planning Process for Wheelchair Selection

Mark N. Ozer, MD

Part II . Technical Considerations

37 Ergononnetric Considerations

Clifford Brubaker, PhD

49 Seat Cushion Selection

Martin W Ferguson-Pel/, PhD

74 Powered Mobility and Its Implications

C. Gerald Warren

Part III. Future Developments

86 Seeking Information about Wheelchair Evaluation: A Call for Action

Samuel R. McFarland, MSME

88 Current Directions in Wheelchair Research

Colin A. McLaurin, ScD

100 Wheelchair Standards: An Overview

Colin A.Mo aurin, ScD and Peter Axm/sm\MSME

Appendix

104 Types of Wheelchairs

A . Bennett Wilson, Jr. and Samuel R. McFarland

1 1 7 Index

vii
No. 6379.

#### J. P. Lynn *v.*The State.

Practice—Platino Cards, Etc. —Evidence.—The information charges that the accused, on March 5, 1888, did play a game of cards in a certain out house, “said out house being then and there a place where people did then and there resort.” To authorize a conviction under this information it was necessary for the State to show by the evidence that the offense was committed prior to the presentation of the information, and that at the very time it was committed the said out house was a place where people resorted. See the opinion for the substance of evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction for playing cards in a place of public resort.

Appeal from the County Court of Coleman. Tried below before the Hon. J. T. Evans, County Judge.

The penalty assessed against the appellant was a fine of ten dollars.

The opinion discloses the nature of the case.

*Woodward &*Vining, for the appellant.

*W. L, Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General for the State.

*591Opinion delivered May 15, 1889.

Willson, Judge.

This conviction is not supported by the evidence. It was not proved that the defendant committed the offense at a date prior to the presentment of the indictment. (Temple v. The State, 15 Texas Ct. App., 304.) It was not sufficiently proved that at the time the defendant played cards in the out house it was a place where people resorted. A witness testified that he had seen persons play cards in said out house one time prior to the time that the defendant played there, but did not state the time. It may have been so long prior as to have no bearing whatever in fixing the character of the place at the time defendant played there.

It was necessary that the State should prove that at the time defendant played in the out house it was *then*a place of resort; that is, a place where people were in the habit of going for gaming or other purposes. (The State v. Norton, 19 Texas, 102; Wheelock v. The State, 15 Texas, 260.)

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Serersed and*remanded»
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.171-23 Marking. ( a ) Each immersion suit must be marked with the words “IMMERSION SUIT—COMPLIES WITH SOLAS 74/83,” the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacturer, the model, the size, and the Coast Guard approval number.
( b ) Each storage case must be marked with the words “immersion suit” and the size.
( c ) The markings for the child size immersion suits required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must also include the following statements in print smaller than the word “child”: “(Small Adult Under 50 kg. (110 lb.))”, and “Children Require Adult Assistance for Donning and Use.”
( d ) If an auxiliary means of buoyancy is removable and is needed to meet § 160.171-11(a)(2), the marking on the suit must indicate that the suit is not Coast Guard approved unless the auxiliary means of buoyancy is attached.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

The undersigned, Sterling H. McDonald, Vice-Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of Evolution Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”),certifies in connection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,2009 (the “Report”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to hisknowledge, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thiscertification as of the 23rd day of September, 2009.

 
|   | /s/ STERLING H. MCDONALD                   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Sterling H. McDonald                       |
|   | Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Evolution Petroleum Corporation andwill be retained by Evolution Petroleum Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certificate is being furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this Form 10-Kand shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.

 

----
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Migo Software, Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      I,
      Richard Liebman, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
      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 to
      my knowledge:




(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.






/s/
                Richard LiebmanRichard
                LiebmanChief
                Financial Officer
                March
                  27, 2007




A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained by
        the
        Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon request.
  The
        foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed
        as
        part of the Form 10-K.
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report of International Food and Wine Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mary Beth Clark, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.   Date: February 12, 2007 /s/ Mary Beth Clark Mary Beth Clark Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH VIGNONE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-12667

vs. HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

s/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: September 30, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on September 30, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

Case 2:14-cv-12667-DPH-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.11 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.052-9 Recognized laboratory. ( a ) A manufacturer seeking Coast Guard approval of a product under this subpart shall follow the approval procedures of subpart 159.005 of this chapter, and shall apply for approval directly to a recognized independent laboratory. The following laboratories are recognized under § 159.010-7 of this part, to perform testing and approval functions under this subpart: Underwriters Laboratories, 12 Laboratory Drive, P.O. Box 13995, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995, (919) 549-1400.
( b ) Production oversight must be performed by the same laboratory that performs the approval tests unless, as determined by the Commandant, the employees of the laboratory performing production oversight receive training and support equal to that of the laboratory that performed the approval testing.
[CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13930, Mar. 28, 1996]
November21, 2013 U. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 FrontierAirlines, Inc. Frontier CenterOne 7001 Tower Road Denver, CO 80249

Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No. 10183 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26027 Dear Sir/Madam:**'~PARnl~NT**

## OF P no.374A2oo

### ~**•.SPOF.~~~rontier<com ;,,~;**  h nltUN 

## '<·Ct<ETOPERATIONS Zll!J l!OV 2 2 A !0: 48

Please acceptthis letter as FrontierAirlines' request to extend Exemption No. 10183, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26027. The current exemption permits exemption from 14 CFR 91.203(a) and (b) and 47.49 to the extent necessaryto allowtemporary operation of U.S. registered aircraft in domestic airline operations without the Aircraft Registration orthe Airworthiness Certificate on board the aircraft. FrontierAirlines, Inc. is confident that granting an extension ofthe**curr~nt** Exemption No. 10183, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26027, would not reduce the level of safety, nor have an adverse impact on the interest ofthe aircraft owners orthe government agencies. Frontier asserts that granting this extension is in the public interest since it will allow FrontierAirlines, Inc. to continue to provide reliable and timely service to the flying public and shippers by reducing the time that aircraft are OI..Jt of service. Please contact Captain William Wood, Airbus Program Manager, at 720.374.4535 with any questions you ay have.

Cc: W. Wood G. Ackerman T. Castens J. Perkins A. Messick

FlyFrontier.com: More Choice. More Perks. More Savings.
-·· 

In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: November 19, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

- 4 .! 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0715 · 

AIRPORT MAILERS, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2012S0700256 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE 

On September 25, 2013, an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and 

Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission was filed. 

On November 19, 2013, the parties appeared by telephone for a Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference, and discussed the status of the case and their calendar availability. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.205(a)(l), (6) and (7), Civ. R. 16, 14 C.F.R. §13.217, and 14 

C.F.R. § 13.220, and after reviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and 

being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The parties require additional time to complete possible settlement negotiations. A 

continuance of the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is granted. 

2. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is continued to December 17,2013 

(10:30am-11:30am ET). At that time, various discovery and litigation deadlines will be 

discussed and set (e.g., initial discovery, general discovery, supplemental discovery, 

exchange of witness lists and exhibits, hearing dates, etc.). 

3. The parties' jointly proposed scheduling/discovery shall be filed on or before December 

10,2013. 

4. For clarifications of this order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed 

in this case, please contact Mr. Cody L. Smith, Attorney-Advisor, at the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-6941 ). 

Attachment: Service List 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. James H. Dunfee, Jr. 

Complainant 's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of Regional Counsel, Southern Region, 

AS0-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Ms. Heather Lowry 

Respondent's Lay Representative 

President 

Airport Mailers, Inc., 

13420 Reese Blvd. W. 

Huntersville, NC 28078 

TEL: none 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0715 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591 , Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.2



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 ending September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael C. Frederick, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 13, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to First Capital, Inc. and will be retained by First Capital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.