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

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM E. POWELL, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11033 

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

THIRD MOTION FOR A VAUGHN INDEX (DE 41) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for a Vaughn index. 

(DE 41.) Within the last three months, the first was denied without prejudice and 

mentioned that it could be renewed during dispositive motion practice (DEs 24 and 

30), and the second was denied and mentioned that dispositive motion practice had 

yet to begin. (DEs 39 and 40.) Moreover, this Court’s October 22, 2015 order 

noted: “Procedurally, district courts typically dispose of FOIA cases on summary 

judgment before plaintiff can conduct discovery.” Rugiero v. United States, 257 

F.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir. 2001). (DE 38 at 2 n.3.) Furthermore, this same notation 

was given on November 12, 2015 in Plaintiff’s other active case. (See Powell v. 

IRS, Case No. 2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich.) (DE 23 at 2 n.2.).) 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 42 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 221
In line with the September 8, 2015 order and the October 22, 2015 

scheduling order, we are not yet in a period which can be described as being 

“during dispositive motion practice.” (DE 30 at 2, DE 38 at 2; see also DE 40 at 

1.) Undaunted by the Court’s repeated and consistent answer to this request, 

Plaintiff somehow still believes that by repeating the request on a nearly monthly 

basis, he will get a different result. He seems unable to take “No” for an answer, 

thus wasting the valuable time of both the Court and the attorney for the 

Government. 

For the reasons previously stated here, from the bench on September 3, 

2015, in the Court’s previous orders (including but not limited to its scheduling 

order), and in the above-cited case law, the instant motion for a Vaughn index (DE 

41) is yet again DENIED. To be clear, Plaintiff may not refile this motion or 

another motion requesting similar relief unless and until dispositive motions are 

pending before the Court. If he fails to heed this directive for the fourth time, he 

risks sanctions. Plaintiff is reminded that patience is a virtue, which needs to be 

exercised here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 4, 2015 s/ Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 42 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 222
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on December 4, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 42 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 223
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CaesarsEntertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Wesley D. Allison, Senior Vice President, Controller and Interim ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated the 10th day of May 2005 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
|                           |
|                           | /S/ WESLEY D. ALLISON |   |
|                           | Wesley D. Allison |
|                           | Senior Vice President, Controller and Interim Chief  Financial Officer, |
|                           | Caesars Entertainment, Inc. |

 

----
2:14-cv-13931-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/10/14 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1
2:14-cv-13931-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/10/14 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 2
2:14-cv-13931-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/10/14 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 3
2:14-cv-13931-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/10/14 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 4
2:14-cv-13931-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/10/14 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 5
2:14-cv-13931-AC-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 10/10/14 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 6
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|    |                                                                                                                   
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies    
|    | with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                    
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the
|    | results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                                                



|Date: May 7, 2010
|-----------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

mniteb ~tate~ QCourt of §ppeaI~ 

for tbe jfeberaI QCircuit 

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Respondent. 

2012-3106 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in consolidated case nos. DC3330110367-1-1, 

DC4324110475-1-1, and DC3330110637-1-1. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

Robert Donnell Donaldson moves to strike respondent's brief because the brief "contains assertions that are 

Factually Incorrect." The Department of Homeland 

Security moves for leave to file a response and opposes. 

Donaldson replies. 

Upon consideration thereof, 
L~ 

ROBERT DONALDSON v. DHS 2 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Donaldson's motion is denied. The court treats 

Donaldson's motion as his reply brief. Copies of the reply 

brief and this order shall be transmitted to the merits 

panel. 

(2) The motion for leave to file a response is granted. 

AUG 15 2012 

Date 

cc: Robert Donnell Donaldson 

Joshua E. Kurland, Esq. 

s26 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

u.s. couJ~~'l~PEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

AUG 1 5 ZOlZ 

JANHORBALY 

CLERK
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.

§ 151.10-1 Barge hull classifications. ( a ) Each barge constructed or converted in conformance with this subpart shall be assigned a hull type number. ( 1 ) Effective dates for certain requirements: ( i ) Barges constructed or converted between July 1, 1964, and June 1, 1970, in accordance with the construction requirements of §§ 32.63 and 98.03 of this chapter are considered to comply with the basic provisions of this subpart and will retain the hull type classification for the service for which they were originally approved. Changes in product endorsement will not be considered a change in service, except when a change to a product of higher specific gravity necessitates a reevaluation of the intact and damage stability requirements in subpart E of part 172 of this chapter.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) For this purpose the barge hull types shall be defined as follows: ( 1 ) *Type I barge hull.* Barge hulls classed as Type I are those designed to carry products which require the maximum preventive measures to preclude the uncontrolled release of the cargo. These barges are required to meet: ( i ) Standards of intact stability and a modified two compartment standard of subdivision and damage stability, as specified in subpart E of part 172 of this chapter; and
( ii ) Hull structural requirements, including an assumed grounding condition.
( 2 ) *Type I-S (special) barge hulls.* Type I-S (special) barge hulls are those constructed or converted for the carriage of chlorine in bulk prior to July 1, 1964, and modified to higher stability standards prior to July 1, 1968, but not meeting the requirements for full Type I classification.
( 3 ) *Type II barge hull.* Barge hulls classed as Type II are those designed to carry products which require significant preventive measures to preclude the uncontrolled release of the cargo. These barges are required to meet: ( i ) Standards of intact stability and a modified one compartment standard of subdivision and damage stability, as specified in subpart E of part 172 of this chapter; and
( ii ) Hull structural requirements, including an assumed grounding condition.
( 4 ) *Type III barge hull.* Barge hulls classed as Type III are those designed to carry products of sufficient hazard to require a moderate degree of control. These barges are required to meet: ( i ) Standards of intact stability as specified in subpart E of part 172 of this chapter; and
( ii ) Hull structural requirements.
[CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3714, Feb. 25, 1970, as amended by CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51008, Nov. 4, 1983; CGD 88-100, 54 FR 40040, Sept. 29, 1989]
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



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2013 (the "Form 10-Q") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").



I, Heather D. Brolick, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Issuer, certify that to my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 15, 2013



| | /s/ Heather D. Brolick               
| | -------------------------------------
| | Heather D. Brolick                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0623

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

BRANDON JEROME LAMBRIGHT,

 Defendant and Appellant,

 

 ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an 

extension of time to and including May 6, 2023, within which to 

prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s Opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 31 2023

03/31/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0623
The State of



# Fourth Court of Ap **peals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 2, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00210

- CR

Shanelle COOKS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008CR6210A Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presidi ng



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant has informed appellant of h er right to review the record and file h er own brief, and has explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record and provided her a form for same

. See Kelly v.

State , No. PD

- 0702

- 13, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) ; Nichols v. State

, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177

n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1 996, no writ).

If appellant desires to file a pro s e brief, we order that s he do so on or before October 17, 2014

. The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant ’ s counsel held in abeyance pending fu rther order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

- 82 ( 1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record
to determine whether counsel ’ s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State

, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on a ppellant and all
counsel._________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of t he said

court on this 2nd day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, William J. Hemelt, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Matrixx Initiatives,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 19, 2004       /s/ William J. Hemelt  William J. Hemelt Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer & Secretary
Exhibit 10.1

LOGO

April
29, 2002

Thomas
E. Gallagher
405 Tracy Court
Incline Village, NV 89451

Re:    Relocation Loan

Dear Tom:

Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement, dated October 23, 2000, ("Employment Agreement") between you and Park Place Entertainment Corporation ("Company").

This
will confirm that Section 3(i) of the Employment Agreement is amended to provide that the relocation loan referred to therein shall be repaid on the earlier of
(a) termination of your employment with the Company, and (b) the date that you sell your residence in Los Angeles, California.

|                                                                                    |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Sincerely,
Park Place Entertainment Corporation                                     |  | 
|/s/STEVE BELLSteve Bell
Senior Vice PresidentHuman Resources                       |  | 
|                                                                                    |  | 
|                                                                                    |  | 
|Agreed and accepted this 29th day of April, 2002, effective as of October 22, 2001. |  | 
|/s/THOMAS E. GALLAGHERThomas E. Gallagher                                           |  | 

---
#### § 169.691 Navigation lights.

Navigation light systems must meet the requirements of § 111.75-17 of this chapter except the requirements of § 111.75-17 (a) and (c).
# C_2012250EN.01001501.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/15

---

Order of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

(Case T-546/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure - Acts inseparable from the contract - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 250/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and B. Conte, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 2 August 2011 confirming the conclusions of the financial audit concerning the financial statements declared by Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, concerning four contracts concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing Technion of the next steps in the procedure.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Oregon Coast Province Advisory Committee will meet at Beazell Center, Kings Valley Highway. The theme of the meeting is Introduction/Overview Business Planning. The agenda includes: Daylight Decisions, Public involvement for BLM's Western Oregon Planning Revision, Forest Service Travel Management Update. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held April 19, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at 37309 Kings Valley Highway, Philomath, Oregon 97370.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joni Quarnstrom, Public Affairs Specialist, Siuslaw National Forest, 541-750-7075, or write to Siuslaw National Forest Supervisor, 4077 SW Research Way, Corvallis, OR 97339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Council Discussion is limited to Forest Service/BLM staff and Council Members. Lunch will be on your own. A public input session will be at 11:30 a.m. for fifteen minutes. The meeting is expected to adjourn around 3:30 p.m.

Dated: April 6, 2007.

Mary Zuschlag,

Natural Resource Staff.

[FR Doc. 07-1815  Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOSHUA PAYNE,

Petitioner

v.

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 28 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6

th day of October, 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the “Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Extraordinary Relief” 

is DENIED.