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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DEBORAH K. RUSSELL, et. al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 14-13134 

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

SANILAC COUNTY, et. al., 

 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/

ORDER 

 On August 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants alleging several violations of 

the United States Constitution. Although Plaintiffs named several state-actors as Defendants, they also 

named two Defendants who are not identified as state-actors: Patrick R. Quintano, Sr., and Jeanette 

Tropf-Quintano. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not provide legal authority for the proposition that their 

constitutional claims are applicable to the non-state-actor Quintano-Defendants (the “QuintanoDefendants”). Therefore, on September 8, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to whether 

this Court has jurisdiction over the Quintano-Defendants. In their response to the show cause order, 

Plaintiffs contend the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Quintano-Defendants pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 on the grounds that they conspired with the state-actor Defendants when they “were given 

authority of custody and care of the [minor children] by [state-actor Defendants] by means of executing a 

Power of Attorney, making Quintano Defendants state actors in part.” Despite the allegations therein, 

Plaintiffs’ response—like their complaint—fails to provide legal authority for the proposition that their 

constitutional claims are applicable to the Quintano-Defendants. Consequently, the Court is not 

persuaded that it has subject matter-jurisdiction over the Quintano-Defendants. 

4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 10/09/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 58
2 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Patrick R. Quintano, Sr., and Jeanette 

Tropf-Quintano, are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s order to show cause [dkt 4] is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

 Date: October 9, 2014 Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

 United States District Judge 

4:14-cv-13134-TGB-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 10/09/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 59
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                        <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>               Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                 Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                       814
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                1250
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             2064
<PP&E>                       0
<DEPRECIATION>               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               2064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        0
<BONDS>                      0
<COMMON>                     4588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                  0
<OTHER-SE>                   (2524)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 2064
<SALES>                      1255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             1255
<CGS>                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             1954
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (699)
<INCOME-TAX>                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (699)
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 (699)
<EPS-BASIC>                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                0



</TABLE>
Exhibit
31.1





I,
Clayton Shelver, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SARS Corporation;





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





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





4. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
small business issuer and have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





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





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





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





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











Dated: February
19,
2008                                                                                    By:
/s/ Clayton
Shelver


Clayton Shelver


Its: Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2,942,188
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               7,027,485
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    48,012,340
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0
<LOANS>                                        89,017,656
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (746,747)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,059,202
<DEPOSITS>                                     126,027,088
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            920,103
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       195,706
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,916,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 151,059,202
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4,947,832
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,478,767
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7,426,599
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,728,719
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,728,719
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3,697,880
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  135,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (34,298)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3,238,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                705,273
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     705,273
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   470,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.04
<LOANS-NON>                                    701,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   2,403
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               728,478
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  124,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   7,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              746,747
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           746,747
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 205 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. THORNBERRY (for himself, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, 

Mr. MACK, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. BROWN

of South Carolina, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. PAUL, and Mr. 

KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Death Tax Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera9 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 205 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub2 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts 

3 made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2071 

To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking of any decennial 

census of population, a checkbox or other similar option be included 

so that respondents may indicate Caribbean extraction or descent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2009 

Ms. CLARKE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking 

of any decennial census of population, a checkbox or 

other similar option be included so that respondents may 

indicate Caribbean extraction or descent. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO CENSUS QUES4 TIONNAIRES. 

5 In conducting the 2010 decennial census and every 

6 decennial census thereafter, the Secretary of Commerce 

7 shall include, in any questionnaire distributed or otherwise 

8 used for the purpose of determining the total population 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2071 IH

1 by States, a checkbox or other similar option by which re2 spondents may indicate Caribbean extraction or descent. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.360 Venting system restriction.

A venting system must have no assembly that could reduce its cross-sectional flow area or flow capacity to less than that required in § 153.358.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.060-8 Marking. ( a ) Each buoyant vest must have the following information clearly marked in waterproof lettering: Inspected and tested in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Polyethylene foam buoyant material provides a minimum buoyant force of (151 ⁄ 2 lb., 11 lb., or 7 lb.). Dry out thoroughly when wet. Approved for use on all recreational boats and on uninspected commercial vessels less than 40 feet in length not carrying passengers for hire by persons weighing (more than 90 lb., 50 to 90 lb., or less than 50 lb.). U.S. Coast Guard Approval No. 160.060/(assigned manufacturer's No.)/(Revision No.); (Model No.). (Name and address of manufacturer or distributor). (Lot No.).
( b ) *Waterproof marking.* Marking of buoyant vests shall be sufficiently waterproof so that after 72 hours submergence in water it will withstand vigorous rubbing by hand while wet without printed matter becoming illegible.
[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8122, Mar. 28, 1973, as amended by CGD 75-008, 43 FR 9771, Mar. 9, 1978; USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56499, Sept. 22, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6915

WILLIAM ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. HUDGINS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00057-GMG)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Anthony Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6915 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

William Anthony Johnson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Johnson’s 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 petition.

*

 We review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration 

for abuse of discretion. See Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (4th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed 

the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Johnson’s Rule 60(b) motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Johnson v. Hudgins, 3:20-cv00057-GMG (N.D.W. Va., July 20, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

* After denying Johnson’s § 2241 petition on March 16, 2023, the district court 

granted his motion to extend the time in which to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We conclude that the district court was without authority to grant 

such an extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Accordingly, because Johnson filed his 

motion for reconsideration on April 21, 2023, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988), more than 28 days after entry of the court’s judgment, the motion is properly 

construed as arising under Rule 60(b), see MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 

269, 277-78 (4th Cir. 2008) (construing prior version of Rule 59(e) with 10-day time 

period). To the extent that Johnson attempts to appeal the underlying order, an appeal from 

the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not “bring up the underlying judgment for review.”

Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6915 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
- 1914
- 1915
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17521-17522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1729]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Transformation Advisory Group Meeting of the U.S. Joint Forces 
Command

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Transformation Advisory Group (TAG) will meet in closed 
session on 6-8 June 2007. The establishment date was already published 
in the Federal Register on 28 May 2003, in accordance with 41 CFR 102-
3.150.
    The mission of the TAG is to provide timely advice on scientific, 
technical and policy-related issues to the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces 
Command as he develops and executes the DOD transformation strategy. 
Full development of the topics will require discussion of information 
classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958, dated 17 April 
1995, as amended March 2003.

[[Page 17522]]

    Access to the information must be strictly limited to personnel 
having the requisite clearances and specific need-to-know. Unauthorized 
disclosure of the information to be discussed at the TAG meetings could 
cause serious damage to our national defense. The meeting will be 
closed for security reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552, Exemption(b)1, 
Protection of National Security, and Exemption(b)3 regarding 
information protected under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and 41 CFR 102-3.155 this meeting will be closed.

DATES: 6-8 June 2007.
    Location: United States Joint Forces Command, 1562 Mitscher Avenue 
Suite 200, Norfolk, VA 23551-2488.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tammy R. Van Dame, Designated 
Federal Officer, (757) 836-5365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mr. Floyd March, Joint Staff, (703) 697-
0610.

    Dated: April 3, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-1729 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### JULIA STAMBAUGH ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. JACOB LIFLAND ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Decided May 7, 1929.

Argued before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the rule, *Thomas P. Meaney.*

Contra, *Pearce B. Franklin.*

Per Curiam.

This is an automobile accident case. The plaintiff Julia Stambaugh, a girl about twenty years old, while riding in the car of her friend, Herman Greenberg, was injured in a collision between that car and one being driven by the defendant Jacob Lifland. She brought the present suit to recover compensation for those injuries, her father being joined as co-plaintiff and seeking to recover the expenses incurred by him in the treatment of his daughter’s injuries and losses sustained by him resulting therefrom. The trial resulted in a verdict of $15,000 in favor of the daughter and $1,000 in favor of the father. The defendant Lifland thereupon applied for and obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a retrial granted as to damages only, and the single contention made before us is that the award to the daughter, and also that to the father, are each of them excessive.

*488Our examination of the proofs sent up with the rule leads us to the conclusion that, although the verdict in favor of the daughter is large, it is not so plainly excessive as to justify our interference. The amount awarded to the father by the verdict is, in our opinion, a very reasonable one.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
Exhibit 10.35
 [NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR GRANT]
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
UNDER THE
LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.
2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 
    Grant of Restricted Stock Units. 2,000
 Satisfaction of Vesting Conditions.
 General .
 Vesting Schedule .




---



##### 



Settlement of Restricted Stock Units.
 provided however
 provided however provided however
   2




---



##### 



Dividends and Dividend Equivalents.
 Rights of Stockholder.
 No Right to Continued Board Membership.
 Transferability.
 Notice.
 Arbitration.
 Governing Law.
 Signature in Counterparts.
   3




---



##### 



LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:Name:
    Michael B. TargoffTitle:
    Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and PresidentGrantee:  Phone Number of Grantee:Email Address of Grantee:
   4
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 151.25-1 Cargo tank. When carrying certain commodities regulated by this subchapter, one of the following types of cargo protection may be required, within the main cargo tank, and in some cases, in the space between the primary and secondary barriers. ( a ) *Inerted.* All vapor spaces within the cargo tank are filled and maintained with a gas or vapor which will not support combustion and which will not react with the cargo.
( b ) *Padded.* All vapor spaces within the cargo tanks are filled and maintained with a liquid, gas (other than air), or vapor which will not react with the cargo.
( c ) *Ventilated (forced).* Vapor space above the liquid surface in the tank is continuously swept with air by means of blowers or other mechanical devices requiring power.
( d ) *Ventilated (natural).* Vapor space above the liquid surface in the tank is continuously swept with atmospheric air without the use of blowers or other mechanical devices requiring power (e.g., “chimney-effect” ventilation).
( e ) *Dry.* All vapor space within the cargo tank is filled and maintained with a gas or vapor containing no more than 100 ppm water.
[CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3714, Feb. 25, 1970, as amended by CGD 88-100, 54 FR 40040, Sept. 29, 1989]
# C_2011311EN.01001701.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG

(Case C-359/11)

2011/C 311/26

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alexandra Schulz

Applicant:

Defendant: Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co.KG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with point (b) and/or (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law on price variations in natural gas delivery contracts with domestic customers, who are supplied gas within the framework of the general duty to supply (standard-rate customers), satisfies the transparency requirements if, in that provision, the grounds, preconditions and scope of the price variation are not stipulated but customers are assured that gas suppliers will give them sufficient advance notice of any price increases and they have the right to terminate the contract if they are unwilling to accept the amended contractual terms and conditions as communicated?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 176, p. 57.

1

---