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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNY SHANNON,

Plaintiff, Case No: 14-14153

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

vs

STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Jury Verdict rendered on June 6, 2016, judgment is

entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. 

Dated at Detroit, Michigan on the 7th Day of June 2016.

David Weaver

Clerk of the Court

By: S/Carol A. Pinegar

Deputy Clerk

Approved by:

S/Victoria A. Roberts

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-14153-VAR-MJH ECF No. 55 filed 06/07/16 PageID.1051 Page 1 of 1
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Jeff Jenson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of UAGH, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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: May 3, 2011  /s/ Jeff Jenson Jeff Jenson Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to UAGH, Inc. and will be retained by UAGH, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Nelson v. Kentucky River Stone & Sand Company.

(Decided March 11, 1919.)

Appeal from Anderson Circuit Court.

Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act. — In holding that the compensation for specific injuries, provided in section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was confined to those injuries and no others, it was not intended to lay down the rule that the Workmen’s Compensation Board could not use the schedule contained in section 18 as a standard by which to measure the compensation to be allowed for injuries not specified, but falling within the general clause awarding compensation, “in all other cases of permanent partial disability,” etc.

LILLARD CARTER and R. L. BLACK for appellant.

O’NEAL & O’NEAL and F. R. FELAND for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Extending' former opinion and overruling petition for rehearing.

Upon a reconsideration of the question involved, we see no reason to depart from our former opinion, but deem it proper to say, that in holding that the compensation for specific injuries, provided in sec. 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was confined to those injuries and no others, it was not intended to lay down the rule that the Workmen’s Compensation Board Could not use the schedule contained in section 18 as a standard by which to measure the compensation to be allowed for injuries not specified, but falling within the general clause awarding compensation, “in all other cases of permanent partial disability,” etc.

Wherefore, the petition for rehearing is overruled and the opinion extended as above indicated.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANNY BALTIERRA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-10008

V.

Honorable Denise Page Hood

ORLANS ASSOCIATES PC,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

brought under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1 filed October 21, 2015. On October 7, 2015, the

Court entered an Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or to Decline

Supplemental Jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 13) For the reasons set forth below, the Court

denies the motion.

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan provide that any motion

for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order. 

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). No response to the motion and no oral argument thereon

shall be allowed unless the Court orders otherwise. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). 

Defendant’s motion is timely filed. The Local Rule further states:

Case 2:15-cv-10008-DPH-MJH ECF No. 16 filed 11/09/15 PageID.174 Page 1 of 3
(3) Grounds. Generally, and without restricting the

court’s discretion, the court will not grant motions for

rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same

issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by

reasonable implication. The movant must not only

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the

parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion

have been misled but also show that correcting the defect

will result in a different disposition of the case.

E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-hash old

arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have

brought up earlier. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.

1998)(motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “are aimed at re consideration, not initial

consideration”)(citing FDIC v. World Universal Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.1992)).

Defendant in its Motion for Reconsideration raises a new argument not initially

raised in its Motion to Dismiss–that Plaintiff failed to met the statutory requirements

under the Michigan Collection Practices Act. In its initial Motion to Dismiss,

Defendant raised the issue of failure to allege actual damages and, alternatively, for

the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Defendant also submitted an affidavit

to support its Motion for Reconsideration which was not submitted in its initial motion

and is not a proper submission under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where only the pleadings

are considered.

Accordingly,

2

Case 2:15-cv-10008-DPH-MJH ECF No. 16 filed 11/09/15 PageID.175 Page 2 of 3
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration under E.D.

Mich. LR 7.1 (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: November 9, 2015

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

November 9, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

Case 2:15-cv-10008-DPH-MJH ECF No. 16 filed 11/09/15 PageID.176 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.060-12 Use and acceptance of existing test data. ( a ) A manufacturer whose ballast water management system (BWMS) has completed approval testing for a foreign administration in accordance with the International Maritime Organization's Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8) may use the data and information developed during such approval testing to support the submission of an application pursuant to § 162.060-14 of this subpart. The applicant must submit the data and other information developed during approval testing and evaluation for another administration, and include a concise but thorough explanation of how the submission meets or exceeds the requirements of this subpart in respect to design, material and manufacture, and ability to meet the BWDS requirements.
( b ) Applications under paragraph (a) of this section will not need to comply with the requirements for advance notice under § 162.060-10(a) of this subpart for testing that has already occurred; or with the requirements that all evaluation, inspection, and testing of the BWMS is conducted by an independent laboratory, previously accepted by the Coast Guard, under § 162.060-10(b) of this subpart. However— ( 1 ) If the applicant determines, prior to submission of an application, that one or more aspects of the Coast Guard's requirements for approval of a BWMS are not satisfied by the data and information developed for approval by another administration, and that additional testing and evaluation is required, the applicant will notify the Coast Guard of the intent to conduct the new testing in accordance with the requirements of § 162.060-10(a) and (b)(1) of this subpart.
( 2 ) While laboratories and test facilities that conducted the test and evaluation for approval by another administration are not required to have been designated as independent laboratories under the requirements of this subpart at the time of such work, as would otherwise be required under § 162.060-10(b) of this subpart, all laboratories and test facilities must have met the requirements under 46 CFR 159.010-3 and 159.010-5(a) at the time of such work. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the satisfaction of this requirement is adequately documented in the application.
#### In the Matter of the Final Accounting of James Fraser *et al.,*Executors, etc., of H. W. Wells, *Deceased*.

Decree of the surrogate affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of the surrogate.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 229 

To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2009 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself and Ms. SUTTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RETENTION OF NAME OF MOUNT MCKINLEY. 

4 Notwithstanding any other authority of law, the 

5 mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north, 

6 by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall continue 

7 to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount 

8 McKinley. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
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; Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

# ACTION:

 Notice of closed meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Missile Defense Advisory Committee will meet in closed session on June 12-13, 2007, in Washington, DC.

The mission of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee is to provide the Department of Defense advice on all matters relating to missile defense, including system development, technology, program maturity and readiness of configurations of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) to enter the acquisition process. At this meeting, the Committee will receive classified briefings by intelligence officials concerning estimated future developments, as well as develop recommendations to be briefed to the Director, Missile Defense Agency.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        COL David R. Wolf, Designated Federal Official (DFO) at                         *david.wolf@mda.mil,*                         phone/voice mail (703) 695-6438, or mail at 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that this Missile Defense Advisory Committee meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: April 18, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Office, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-2043 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending October 15, 2005

|Filer                     | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|GRANDSOUTH BANCORPORATION | CIC            | Notice by Mason Young Garrett and Mary Beth Garrett both of Belton, South Carolina, to increase control of GrandSouth Bancorporation, Greenville, South Carolina. | Newspaper:10/22/2005Federal Register:10/20/2005    
|Newspaper:                | 10/22/2005    
|Federal Register:         | 10/20/2005    
|NEW PEOPLES BANK, INC.    | * Branch       | New Peoples Bank, Honaker, Virginia, to establish a branch at 11421 Indian Creek Road, Pound, Virginina.                                                          | Newspaper:10/24/2005Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                | 10/24/2005    
|Federal Register:         | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 31.2

                                  Certification

I, Concetta Pryor, Chief Financial Officer of Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Long Island Physician
Holdings Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant'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(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: September 9, 2005

/s/
---------------------------------------
Concetta Pryor, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


                                       29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JULIUS R. CARTER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13568

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Pro se Plaintiff Julius Carter (“Carter”) filed a Complaint against Defendant

Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”), and requests to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”); however, the Court DISMISSES his claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Carter challenges the alleged “wrongful charge with overpayment of benefits of

$19,000.00 of more.” He asks the Court to “give me my legal rights (constitutional

rights)[,] equal right under the law, pain and suffering, punitive damages, mental

distress and refunding all monies that was [sic] taken.” 

Matters related to benefit decisions are not within the jurisdiction of the United

States District Courts. 38 U.S.C.A. § 511; Beamon v. Brown, 125 F.3d 965, 970-71 (6th

Cir. 1997). To challenge the propriety of the Secretary’s withholding of funds, Carter

must follow the process identified by the Secretary, which may include an appeal to the

Board of Veterans’ Appeals, perhaps an appeal of that decision to the Court of Appeals

for Veterans’ Claims, and finally if necessary an appeal to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

1

2:14-cv-13568-VAR-DRG Doc # 9 Filed 08/13/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 22
Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Carter’s claim is DISMISSED. 

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: August 13, 2015

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Julius R. Carter by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on August 13, 2015.

S/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2

2:14-cv-13568-VAR-DRG Doc # 9 Filed 08/13/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 23
# C_2008304EN.01001801.xml

| 27.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/18

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan: change of the address of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty

(2008/C 304/08)

Imports of cotton-type bed linen, originating in Pakistan are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 (1) (‘Regulation (EC) No 397/2004’).

1

A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd, a company located in Pakistan, whose exports to the Community of cotton-type bed linen are subject to an individual anti-dumping duty rate of 5,8 % imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004, has informed the Commission that on 5 March 2008, it changed its address.

The company has argued that the change of address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous address of:

| Off. No 6, Ground Floor |
| --- |
| Business Center, New Civil Lines |
| Faisalabad |

Off. No 6, Ground Floor

Business Center, New Civil Lines

Faisalabad

The company submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the change of their registered address was due to closure of a city office and a transfer of its activity to an existing production facility of the company.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004. Therefore, the reference, in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 397/2004, to:

| A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd |
| --- |
| Off. No 6, Ground Floor |
| Business Center, New Civil Lines |
| Faisalabad |

A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd

Off. No 6, Ground Floor

Business Center, New Civil Lines

Faisalabad

should be read as:

| A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd |
| --- |
| Lasani Pulli, Near Khayaban Gardens |
| Sargodha Road |
| Faisalabad |

A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd

Lasani Pulli, Near Khayaban Gardens

Sargodha Road

Faisalabad

The Taric additional code A706 shall apply to:

| A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd |
| --- |
| Lasani Pulli, Near Khayaban Gardens |
| Sargodha Road |
| Faisalabad |

A.B. Exports (PVT) Ltd

Lasani Pulli, Near Khayaban Gardens

Sargodha Road

Faisalabad

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 4.3.2004, p. 1.

1

---