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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-14526

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

JOHN SNEAD, et al.,

Defendants,

and

USIR N. EL BEY F.K.A. JOHN SNEAD,

Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Counter-Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Before the court is Usir N. El Bey’s motion for clarification. He is seeking

clarification of the Sixth Circuit’s August 20, 2015 order denying his application to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. This matter is pending before the Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider El

Bey’s motion. See Dunham v. U. S., 486 F.3d 931, 935 (6th Cir. 2007) (“The

5:14-cv-14526-JCO-MJH Doc # 39 Filed 09/10/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1637
traditional rule is that ‘a timely appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to

reconsider its judgment until the case is remanded by the Court of Appeals.’”). El

Bey may re-file his motion with the Sixth Circuit.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that El Bey’s motion for clarification is

DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: September 10, 2015

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

parties of record on this date, September 10, 2015, using the ECF system and/or

ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-2-

5:14-cv-14526-JCO-MJH Doc # 39 Filed 09/10/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1638
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

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

I, AlexFerries, Chief Financial Officer of UAGH, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)

the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter endedDecember 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and

(2)

theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Date:  March 26, 2009

*/s/ Alex Ferries*

Alex Ferries

Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act hasbeen furnished to UAGH, Inc. and will be retained by UAGH, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
**EXHIBIT 32****Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer****Certification of Periodic Financial Report**Carl B. Webb and Mike L. Wilhelms hereby certify as follows:     1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of TriadFinancial Corporation.     2. The Form 10-Q of Triad Financial Corporation for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofTriad Financial Corporation.   Dated: May 14, 2007 /s/ CARL B. WEBB     Carl B. Webb,  President & Chief Executive Officer   Dated: May 14, 2007 /s/ MIKE L. WILHELMS     Mike L. Wilhelms  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION DERIVED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ONEPOINT COMMUNICATIONS CORP.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,670
<SECURITIES>                                    14,437
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                         59
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,984
<PP&E>                                          27,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,195
<BONDS>                                        101,109
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           35,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,065
<SALES>                                          9,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,683
<CGS>                                            9,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    627
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       627
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN H. UNDERHILL, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14768 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

SHERI ROYER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, REJECTING STIPULATION 

AS MOOT, AND CANCELLING HEARING 

 On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff John H. Underhill filed a complaint against Defendants, 

alleging violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights and seeking a declaratory 

judgment. On February 2, 2015, Defendants Scott Pavlich and Sheri Royer each filed a motion 

to dismiss the complaint. ECF Nos. 14, 15. The Court therefore set the motions to dismiss for 

hearing on April 15, 2015. 

 On February 23, 2015, Underhill filed a First Amended Complaint.1

 ECF No. 19. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) permits a party to amend a pleading as a matter of 

course “21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . .” Having filed an amended 

complaint as a matter of course, Underhill’s amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint for all purposes. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 410 (6th Cir. 2014). “The filing of 

the amended complaint ‘render[s] the original complaint null and void.” Glass v. The Kellogg 

Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (quoting Vadas v. United States, 527 F.3d 16, 22 

n.4 (2d Cir. 2007)). 

 

1

 Underhill has not explained how his Amended Complaint differs from his original Complaint. 

1:14-cv-14768-TLL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 174
- 2 - 

 Because the original complaint has been superseded, there is no longer a live dispute 

about the merits of the claims asserted in it. See Cedar View, Ltd. v. Colpetzer, 2006 WL 

456482, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2006) (the “earlier motion to dismiss . . . and motion for 

judgment on the pleadings . . . are denied as moot, as they refer to a version of the complaint that 

has since been replaced . . . .”). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant Scott Pavlich’s Motion to Dismiss the 

Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant Sheri Royer’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 

(ECF No. 15) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 It is further ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for Underhill 

to respond to the motions to dismiss is REJECTED AS MOOT. 

 It is further ORDERED that the hearing set for April 15, 2015 is CANCELLED. 

 

 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 24, 2015 

 

PROOF 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 24, 2015. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-14768-TLL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 175
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHY CHARLES, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 15-10139

HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

1015078 ONTARIO LTD, d/b/a

DOVE CREEK MOTOR EXPRESS,

a foreign corporation,

and ROBERT DAVID LLEWELLYN,

an individual,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER SATISFYING SHOW CAUSE

On February 13, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the

complete diversity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was met. Specifically, the Court

required information regarding the place of incorporation for defendant corporation; the

citizenship of plaintiff; and the citizenship of the individual defendant. 

On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a satisfactory response to the Court’s

Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has shown that diversity exists for the

purpose of § 1332.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: March 9, 2015

2:15-cv-10139-VAR-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 03/09/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 49
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

March 9, 2015.

S/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:15-cv-10139-VAR-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 03/09/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 50
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

By signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lincoln Bancorp.

 

Signed this 11th day of August, 2008

 

 

| CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: |                    | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER: |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|
|                     |                    |                     |   |   |
| By:                      | /s/ John M. Baer        |                     | By: | /s/ Jerry R. Engle |
|                     | John M. Baer            |                     |   | Jerry R. Engle |
|                     | Secretary and Treasurer |                     |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

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 Lincoln Bancorp and will be retained by Lincoln Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered October 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00595-CR

JAMES EDWARD GRUMBLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB10-69593-B

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
# C_2012227EN.01003602.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Macchia v Commission

(Case F-63/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Administration’s discretion - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005, on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff - Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)

2012/C 227/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Macchia (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rogrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the acting Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, of 12 August 2010, rejecting the application to extend Mr Macchia’s contract as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the acting Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, of 12 August 2010, rejecting the application to extend Mr Macchia’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

| 2. | Rejects the application for the rest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the application for the rest.

---

(1)  OJ C 226 of 30 July 2011, p. 32

1

---
# C_2013336EN.01002301.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/23

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission

(Case T-540/11) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 336/47

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV (Sint Anthonis, Netherlands); Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak (Oosterwolde, Netherlands); Mulders Agro vof (Heerle, Netherlands); Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof (Grashoek, Netherlands); Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV (Heusden, Netherlands); and Mathijs Moonen (Nederweert, Netherlands) (represented by P. Mazel and A. van Beelen, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by Z. Malůšková and B. Burggraaf, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Claim for damages for the loss allegedly caused to the applicants by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (JO 2006 L 274, p. 6).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV and Mr Mathijs Moonen are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV and Mr Mathijs Moonen are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

1

---
**EXHIBTI 32.2**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

The certification set forth below is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

May 8,2009

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer ofNorthern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

i.                              that thisannual  report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the yearended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.                           thatinformation contained in the annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations  of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|       | /s/  Bruce N. Warner                                      |
|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | Bruce N.  Warner                                          |
|       | Chief  Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 162

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 162.027-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of combination firehose nozzles.

[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48277, July 22, 2016]
(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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 Dated:  November 12, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Eloise L. MackusEloise L. Mackus, Esq.Interim Chief Executive OfficerDated: November 12, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPAPresident, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
§ 178.450 Calculation of drainage area for cockpit and well deck vessels. ( a ) The drainage area required on a vessel must be computed using the following formula: For protected waters required drainage = .1 × Basic Drainage For partially protected waters required drainage = .5 × Basic Drainage For exposed waters required drainage = Basic Drainage where: Basic Drainage area in centimeters2 = 4389.12 × [(Recess Volume × Recess Ratio) + (Weather Deck Volume × Weather Deck Ratio)]; or Basic Drainage area in inch2 = (Recess Volume × Recess Ratio) + (Weather Deck Volume × Weather Deck Ratio) Recess Volume = (BR × DR) − VR BR = average height in centimeters (feet) of the bulwark above the well deck or cockpit deck; DR = total deck area of the cockpit or well deck in the after
2 ⁄ 3 of the vessel length (LOD) measured in centimeters2 (feet2). VR = volume of any weather tight structure below the bulwark of the well deck or cockpit deck.
Recess Ratio = LR / LC LR = the length of the recess in the after
2 ⁄ 3 vessel length (LOD). LC=
2 ⁄ 3 vessel length (LOD).
Weather Deck Volume = (BD × DD) − VS BD = average height in centimeters (feet) of the bulwark above the weather deck; DD = total deck area of the weather deck adjacent to bulwarks but not in way of the cockpit or well deck in the after
2 ⁄ 3 of the vessel length (LOD) measured in centimenters2 (feet2). VS = volume of any weather tight superstructure below the bulwark on the weather deck located within DD.
Weather Deck Ratio = LD / LC LD = the length of the weather deck bulwark in the after
2 ⁄ 3 of the vessel length (LOD). LC=
2 ⁄ 3 vessel length (LOD).
( b ) Vessels with bulwarks in the forward part of the vessel shall not form a well with the deckhouse which retains water.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 966, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996; USCG-2022-0323, 88 FR 10032, Feb. 16, 2023 ]
# C_2013225EN.01006702.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/67

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Voss of Norway v OHIM — Nordic Spirit (Three-dimensional shape of a bottle)

(Case T-178/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark depicting the shape of a bottle - Absolute grounds for refusal)

2013/C 225/149

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Voss of Norway ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and B. La Tella, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Melgar, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nordic Spirit AB (publ) (Stockholm, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 785/2010-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between Nordic Spirit AB (publ) and Voss of Norway ASA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Voss of Norway ASA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Voss of Norway ASA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---