alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

47UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20346 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

JOSHUA TUCHOLSKI, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY (ECF #54) 

On April 9, 2014, law enforcement agents executed a search warrant at a 

residence belonging to Defendant Joshua Tucholski. During that search, agents 

seized numerous items belonging to Tucholski, including computer equipment, an 

XBOX 360 HD video game system, and two cellular telephones. (See ECF #54 at 

Pg. ID 458-459.) Tucholski subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of distribution 

of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). (See ECF #37.) 

The Court imposed sentence on Tucholski on September 22, 2015. (See id.) 

On June 7, 2017, Tucholski filed a motion in which he asks the Court to order 

the Government to return (to his parents) certain specifically-identified personal 

property that the Government seized at the time of the search. (See ECF #54.) The 

Government “does not object to the return of [Tucholski’s] property that was seized 
2 

... and which does not contain contraband.” (Government’s Resp. Br., ECF #56 at 

Pg. ID 463.) However, the Government asserts that (1) it already returned much of 

the property Tucholski identified in his motion and (2) to the extent that it has not 

returned those items, it does not possess them. (See id. at Pg. ID 463-64.) 

Accordingly, because the Government does not object to returning 

Tucholski’s property, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tucholski’s motion for 

return of personal property (ECF #54) is GRANTED IN PART as follows: If the 

Government possesses any of the items described in Tucholski’s motion, and if those 

items do not contain contraband, then the Government shall return them to 

Tucholski’s parents within 21 days of this Order. In all other respects, Tucholski’s 

motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 13, 2017 

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

and/or counsel of record on November 13, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6037

ANTHONY WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; J. Halsey

HARRIS, Regional Obudsman; EDDIE L. PEARSON,

Chief Warden; DAVID B. EVERETT, Assistant

Warden of Operation and Security; JAMILA F.

BURNEY, Assistant Warden of Housing and

Programs; RICK E. WHITE, Senior Counselor;

MICHAEL SHAWN EDWARDS, Chaplin; RUFUS

ROBINSON, Unit Manager; L. MURPHY, Grievance

Coordinator; SERGEANT PARHAM, Correctional

Officer; MR. APPEL, Registered Nurse;

LIEUTENANT HAMLETTE; JOHN DOE, IV; OFFICER

KELLY; SERGEANT TISCHLER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-02-778)

Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004

Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Anthony Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing the claims against Defendant Appel in Washington’s

ongoing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Washington seeks to appeal

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Central Federal 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 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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; andc)
    
    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 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 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 registrants board of directors:
 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; andb)
    
    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: May 14, 2009
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 18103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1822]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 18103]]

                Memorandum of March 23, 2007

                
Assignment of Functions Under Section 530 of the 
                Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
                1994 and 1995, and Section 2(b)(4) of the Export-Import 
                Bank Act of 1945, as Amended

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and laws of the United States of America, 
                including section 301 of title 3 of the United States 
                Code, I hereby assign to you:

                (1)the functions of the President under section 530 of 
                the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal 
                Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) (22 U.S.C. 
                2429a-2); and

                (2)the functions of the President under section 2(b)(4) 
                of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended (12 
                U.S.C. 635).

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 07-1822
Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
#### § 174.215 Drainage of weather deck.

The weather deck must have open rails to allow rapid clearing of water, or must have freeing ports in compliance with § 42.15-70 of this chapter.
# C_2012025EN.01002801.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2011 — Lowlands Design Holding BV, other party: Minister van Financiën

(Case C-524/11)

(2012/C 25/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lowlands Design Holding BV

Respondent: Minister van Financiën

Question referred

How should CN subheadings 6209 20, 6211 42 and CN subheading 9404 30 be interpreted for the purposes of the tariff classification of articles for babies or for young children such as those at issue here?

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY HINTON, #646238,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 2:15-CV-10687

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

ROBERT NAPEL,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS TO EXPAND THE RECORD

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Corey Hinton

(“Petitioner”) was convicted of felony murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, felon

in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f, and possession of a firearm

during the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b, following a jury

trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment

without parole, a concurrent term of one to seven and one-half years imprisonment,

and a consecutive term of two years imprisonment on those convictions. In his

pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the non-production of a witness and the

admission of his prior testimony, the jury instructions, the composition of the jury, and

the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel.

The matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motions to expand the record to

add his own affidavit and mental health records, which he states are relevant to his

2:15-cv-10687-DPH-PTM Doc # 14 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1761
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Petitioner filed his initial motion with his

reply brief on February 11, 2016 and filed a supplemental motion on April 4, 2016. 

Respondent has not filed a response to the motions, but has submitted an answer to the

petition and the state court record.

A federal court has discretion to supplement the state court record with

materials relevant to the resolution of the habeas petition. Rule 7, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds that the record may

not be expanded as requested. Respondent has submitted the state court materials. 

Petitioner fails to show that the additional materials are necessary to the resolution of

the habeas petition and fails to show that they were part of the state court proceedings. 

The United States Supreme Court has made clear that federal habeas review under 28

U.S.C. §2254(d) is “limited to the record that was before the state court that

adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). 

Petitioner is precluded from injecting new information that was not presented to the

state courts into this habeas proceeding. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s

motions to expand the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: April 29, 2016

2

2:15-cv-10687-DPH-PTM Doc # 14 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1762
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on April 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-10687-DPH-PTM Doc # 14 Filed 04/29/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1763
EXHIBIT 11.0      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
------------                        (UNAUDITED)
                 (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED                  SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                            ------------------                  ----------------
                                                             JUNE 30, 2004                        JUNE 30, 2004
                                                             -------------                        -------------
                                                           2004           2003                2004           2003
                                                           ----           ----                ----           ----
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>                 <C>             <C>
Net income available to
   common shareholders                                   $ (897)         $ 782                 $24         $ 1,580

Total weighted average
   common shares outstanding                          1,503,606      1,471,263           1,501,067       1,460,457

Basic earnings per common share                          $ (.60)         $ .53                $.02         $  1.08
                                                            ----           ---                 ---            ----

Total weighted average
   common shares outstanding                          1,503,606      1,471,263           1,501,067       1,460,457

Dilutive effect of stock options using
   the treasury stock method                             84,904         76,431              84,643          70,028

Total average common and common
   equivalent shares                                  1,588,510      1,547,694           1,585,710       1,530,485
                                                      ---------      ---------           ---------       ---------

Diluted earnings per common share                        $ (.56)         $ .51                $.02         $  1.03
                                                           -----           ---                 ---            ----
</TABLE>
#### § 188.01-3 Scope of regulations.

The regulations in this subchapter contain requirements for materials, design, construction, equipment, lifesaving appliances and procedures, fire protection, and fire prevention procedures, inspection and certification, and special operational requirements for oceanographic research vessels, including the handling, use, and control of explosives and other dangerous articles or substances. The regulations in this subchapter (parts 188, 189, 190, and 193 through 196) have preemptive effect over State or local regulations in the same field.

[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-081, 46 FR 56204, Nov. 16, 1981; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51219, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48301, July 22, 2016]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

      I, Tracey A. Welsh, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Issuer, certify that:

      (i)   the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: May 14, 2004

                                         /s/ Tracey A. Welsh
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Tracey A. Welsh
                                         Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                         Officer and Treasurer
United States District Court

Eastern District of North Carolina

Northern Division

Holly Lynn Koerber and

Committee for Truth in Politics, Inc.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:08-cv-00039-H

Stipulation of Dismissal

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the plaintiffs hereby dismiss this case with

prejudice through this Stipulation of Dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

Anthony Herman, General Counsel

Lisa J. Stevenson,

 Deputy General Counsel–Law

Kevin Deeley,

 Acting Associate General Counsel

 kdeeley@fec.gov

/s/ Harry Summers

Harry Summers, Assistant General Counsel

 hsummers@fec.gov

Kevin P. Hancock, Attorney

 khancock@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

202/694-1650 telephone

202/219-0260 facsimile

Counsel for Defendant

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James Bopp, Jr.

James Bopp Jr, jboppjr@aol.com

 Ind. Bar No. 2838-84

/s/ Richard E. Coleson

Richard E. Coleson, rcoleson@bopplaw.com

 Ind. Bar No. 11527-70

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Paul Stam

Paul Stam, paulstam@bellsouth.net

 State Bar No. 6865

STAM FORDHAM & DANCHI, P.A.

P.O. Box 1600

510 W. Williams Street

Apex, NC 27502

919/362-8873 telephone

919/387-7329 facsimile

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 73 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 2
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on April 30, 2013, I electronically filed the Stipulation of Dismissal

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing

to the following counsel:

Kevin Deeley, kdeeley@fec.gov

Harry J. Summers, hsummers@fec.gov

Kevin P. Hancock, khancock@fec.gov

Claire N. Rajan, crajan@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20436

R.A. Renfer, Jr., rudy.renfer@usdoj.gov

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Suite 800, 310 New Bern Ave.

Raleigh, NC 27601

Anita S. Earls, anita@southerncoalition.org

SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

1415 West Highway 54, Suite 101

Durham, NC 27707.

/s/ Richard E. Coleson 

Richard E. Coleson, rcoleson@bopplaw.com

 Ind. Bar No. 11527-70

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Stam

Paul Stam, paulstam@bellsouth.net

 State Bar No. 6865

STAM FORDHAM & DANCHI, P.A.

P.O. Box 1600

510 W. Williams Street

Apex, NC 27502

919/362-8873 telephone

919/387-7329 facsimile

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 2:08-cv-00039-H Document 73 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2098 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2098

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the look-through 
 treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2009

 Mr. Tanner (for himself, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, and Mr. Boustany) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the look-through 
 treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LOOK-THROUGH TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN 
              RELATED CONTROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

    Subparagraph (C) of section 954(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 2010'' and inserting 
``January 1, 2015''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 23.0 Consent of BKD, LLP [BKD,LLP LETTERHEAD] INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS CONSENT The Board of Directors
Citizens First Financial Corp. We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Citizens
First Financial Corp. on Form S-8 (Registration Statement
Nos. 333-79389, 333-37925, and 333-41615) of our reports dated
January 21, 2005, and March 8, 2005, on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of Citizens First Financial Corp. as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. BKD, LLP Decatur, Illinois
March 24, 2005