alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1


                                [G&P LETTERHEAD]

January 24, 2005

RTG Ventures, Inc.
Attention: Linda Perry
c/o Barrington J. Fludgate
185 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016

   RE:  MODIFIED RETAINER AGREEMENT


Dear Ms. Perry:

         Please accept this letter as confirmation that RTG Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company"), has agreed to modify the retainer agreement dated August 3, 2004
(the "Retainer") between the Company and Gottbetter & Partners, LLP. ("G&P"),
effective January 24, 2005. The modification, which we understand was approved
by the Company's Board of Directors, is for the Company to pay part of its
outstanding bill for legal services with shares of the Company's common stock,
no par value.

         We understand that part of the outstanding bill will be satisfied by
the issuance of 3,000,000 shares valued at $.01 per share or an aggregate of
$30,000. The board of directors has approved the filing of a registration on
Form S-8 for these 3,000,000 shares. The legal services for which these shares
are being registered and subsequently issued to Adam S. Gottbetter, a partner in
G&P, did not include any services in connection with the offer or sale of
securities in a capital raising transaction, and did not directly or indirectly
promote or maintain a market for the Company's securities.

         Please note that this letter may be filed as an exhibit to the Form
S-8. In order to effectuate the modification of the Retainer, please sign this
letter and return it to my office. If you have any questions, please call me.

Sincerely,

GOTTBETTER & PARTNERS, LLP

/s/ Gottbetter & Partners, LLP

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

RTG VENTURES, INC.

By: /s/ Linda Perry
    -----------------------
Name:    Linda Perry
Title:   President
P/2PcK4cU=2cKZPXcUKcKGU@GZ2c#ZM2P\@T@KGc

--
--

$*-,&"-

	 +,"*(-'+,*'!,-)#-'!&'% (-

%$c#$cc$#cc!c



&c#cS@2c$=KE)Tc P@EcKc "c

Gc





cU=2cK[PUc)ZU=KP@b20cU=2c@TTZ+G.2cK4c)cTZM2P]@T20cP2C2)T2c^)PP+GUc-)T20cZMKGc)c\@KC)U@KGcM2U@U@KGc

.@U@G<c\@KC)U@KGTcK4cTZM2P\@T@KGc $=2c@TTZ2TcK4cU=2c\@KC)U@KGTc^)T
^2P2c=2)P0c@GcKZPUcKGc




c)G0c

U=2cKZPUcE)02cU=2c:CCK^@G<c9G0@G<Tc

'c Z@CU`cK4c\@KC)U@G<cKZGUTc
c)G0cc K4cU=2c
c&@KC)U@KGc!2MKPX	cKZGUcc^)Tc0@TE@TT20	c $=2c:CCK^@G<c

TM2.@)Cc.KG/@U@KGTcK4cTZM2P]@T@KGc@T
)P2c)0/20c

#M2.@)CcKG0@U@KGcc+E2G020c $=2c026G/)GUc T=)CCcM)PX@.@M)U2c@Gc)c MPK<P)Ec)MMPK\20c -`c U=2cMPK-)U@KGc

02M)PYE2GUc:PcE2GU)Cc=2)CU=c.K[GT2C@G<c)G0c)G<2PcE)G)<2E2GUc

(KZcEZTUc P2T@02c@Gc)c!2T@/2GU@)Cc!22GUP`c 2GU2Pc!!c :Pc c 0)`Tc(KZcEZTUc :CCK^cU=2c PZC2Tc )G0c

P2<ZC)U@KGTcK4cU=2c.2GU2Pc#Z-T@TU2G.2c.KTUc)TTK.@)U20c^@U=cMC).2E2GUc=)Tc-22Gc^)@\20c

(KZcEZTUcGKUcZT2cKPcMKTT2TTc)C.K=KCc@Gc)G`c.KGTZE)-C2c:PEcGKPcT=)CCc`KZc-2c@GcU=2cTK.@)Cc.KEM+G`cK4c

)G`cM2PTKGc^=KEc `KZcBGK^cUKc-2c@GcMKTT2TT@KGcK4c)C.K=KCc KPc@CC2<)Cc0PZ<TcKPc;2OZ2GUc)Gc 2TU)-C@T?E2GUc

^=2P2c)C.K=KCc@TcT2P\20c:Pc.KGT[EMU@KGcKGcU=2cMP2E@T2Tc^@U=cU=2c2_.2MU@KGcK4P2TU)ZP)GUTc

E,c )c C)PKTc

%G@U20c#U)U2Tc PK-)U@KGc8.2Pc

	-
-	--

 ZPTZ)JUcUKcU=2c)-K\2c@Uc@TcKP02P20cU=)UcU=2cM2G0@G<c\@KC)U@KGcE)UU2Pc-2cP2TKC\20c)G0c

TZN2P\@T@KGc @Gc U=@Tc .)T2c -2c .KGU@GZ20c CDc .KG0@U@KGTc @EMKT2/c )Uc U=2c U@E2c K4c

T2GU2G.@G<c)CKG<c^@U=c)G`cTZ-T2OZ2GUcEK0@5A.)U@KGTcUKcU=KT2c.KG0@U@KGTcP2E)@Gc@Gc

272.Uc

)U20cU=@TcU=c)`cK4c)ac


c

Case 2:15-cr-20106-MFL-MKM ECF No. 916, PageID.4369 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2
"#$
!$$

	$
$
$ 


H!$$M


Case 2:15-cr-20106-MFL-MKM ECF No. 916, PageID.4370 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2458 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit Federal education 

funding for elementary or secondary schools that provide access to emergency postcoital contraception. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2009 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BARTLETT, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CONAWAY, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. 

HENSARLING, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of 

Texas, Mr. JONES, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KLINE

of Minnesota, Mr. LATTA, Mr. LINDER, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MCKEON, Mrs. MCMORRIS

RODGERS, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. 

PITTS, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. 

WITTMAN, and Mr. MILLER of Florida) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit 

Federal education funding for elementary or secondary 

schools that provide access to emergency postcoital contraception. 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2458 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Schoolchildren’s 

3 Health Protection Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SCHOOLCHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION. 

5 The General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 

6 1221 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new part: 

8 ‘‘PART E—SCHOOLCHILDREN’S HEALTH 

9 PROTECTION 

10 ‘‘SEC. 461. LIMITATION ON FUNDING. 

11 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, 

12 no funds shall be made available from any applicable pro13 gram to a State educational agency or local educational 

14 agency that distributes or provides postcoital emergency 

15 contraception (such as the so-called ‘morning-after pill’) 

16 or a prescription for such contraception on the premises, 

17 or in the facilities, of an elementary school or secondary 

18 school. 

19 ‘‘SEC. 462. DEFINITION. 

20 ‘‘In this part, the term ‘postcoital emergency contra21 ception’ means— 

22 ‘‘(1) any of the regimens described in the notice 

23 entitled ‘Prescription Drug Products; Certain Com24 bined Oral Contraceptives for Use as Postcoital 

25 Emergency Contraception’, published in the Federal 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2458 IH

1 Register on February 25, 1997 (62 FR 8610), or 

2 any subsequent corresponding notice; or 

3 ‘‘(2) any other drug or device to be used after 

4 fertilization may have occurred and for the same 

5 purposes as the regimes in subparagraph (A).’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32**




**Certification
      of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fusion Telecommunications
      International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended
      March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date hereof (the “Report”), Matthew D. Rosen, as Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, and Barbara Hughes, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
      hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to each officer’s knowledge:




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


Dated:
              May
              15, 2006
            
            /s/
                Matthew D. Rosen
              Matthew
                D. Rosen
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer/s/
              Barbara Hughes
              Barbara
                Hughes
              Chief
                Financial Officer
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 June 30, 2017 (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: August 14, 2017



| | /s/ Heather D. Brolick                   
| | -----------------------------------------
| | Heather D. Brolick                       
| | President and Chief
    Executive Officer
Served: March 22, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 22nd of March, 2012

Essential Air Service at

ADAK, ALASKA

ATKA, ALASKA

NIKOLKSI, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2000-8556

DOCKET DOT-OST-1995-363

DOCKET DOT-OST-1995-363

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT ADAK, ATKA, AND NIKOLSKI

By Order 2010-7-9 the Department selected Alaska Airlines, Inc., to provide Essential Air Service 

(EAS) at Adak, Alaska, for $1,675,703, and Peninsula Airways, Inc., (PenAir) to provide EAS at 

Atka and Nikolski, Alaska, for $290,780 and $639,008, respectively. Rates are set to expire on 

June 30, 2012. With the end of the contract approaching, by Order 2012-2-8, February 10, 2012, 

we requested proposals at the three communities by March 9, 2012. On March 1, 2012, PenAir 

requested a two-week extension, until March 23, 2012, to submit proposals. By notice dated 

March 2, 2012, we extended the deadline for proposals to March 23, 2012, for all three 

communities. 

On March 21, 2012, Grant Aviation, Inc., requested a one-week extension to March 30, 2012. In 

support of its request, Grant indicates that it only recently became aware of the need for EAS 

proposals at Atka and Nikolski, that this would be the first time it had submitted an EAS 

proposal, and that it needed the extra time to provide a detailed and reasonable proposal. 

We will grant the extension requested by Grant. Proposals at the three communities are 

now due on March 30, 2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
0 

Cl 

1-' ' 

00 

' 1\:l 

0 

0 

~ 

§ 

0 

~ 

1\:l 

0 

....., 

~ 

' ~ 

~ 

z 

0 

...:( 

1\:l 

0 

~ 

tl§;l 

0 

0 

1\:l 

Or-de.r ~u.""'be\: ) 4.2Sos 

Hydrogen 

Copper 

Cromite 

Fatty Acid 

(Erucic) 

Hydrogenation 

Chamber 

I Ligh~ Paraffins I 

Crude fatty 

from Tan 

-

• Distillation 

Column 1 

I 

C16 • C18 

~Alcohols 

I 

HYDROGENATION 

95%Aicohol 

5% Crude Product Stream 

(wax ester; paraffin; 

Aldehydes) 

I 

C20-C22 - f-+ Alcohols 

Distillation 

Column2 

Depressurisation 

Chamber 1 

DISTILLATION 

I 

.I 

I 

Distillation 

Column3 

~ 

422 Alcohols+ ~ I 

Wax Esters 

Depressurisation 

Chamber2 

C22-C24 I 

Bottom I 

Tank Farm .. 1 

Crude Fatty Alcohol 

Storage Tank 500m3 

Crude Fatty Alcohol Crude alcohol 

Storage Tank 400 ms for Distillation Step 

Crude Fatty Alcohol 

Storage Tank 1500 

(v 

I 

1-' 

00 

' 0

Cl 

1\:l 

0 

0 

~ 

0 

~ 

1-'· 

c.> 

~ + 

~ 

~ 

1\:l 

c.> 

Cl 

aJ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

1\:l 

~ 

0 

C/l 

> 

til 

0 

I:"' 

;g 

0 

~ 

c: 

0 

..., 

til 

> 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

\ 

tl§;l 

0 

0 

1\:l
# C_2011298EN.01002202.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/22

---

Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

(Case T-437/11)

2011/C 298/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and S. Smith, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2011 in case R 1310/2010-1, in so far as it held that the appeal before the Board of Appeal was successful in respect of goods in class 16; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2011 in case R 1310/2010-1, in so far as it held that the appeal before the Board of Appeal was successful in respect of goods in class 16; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal, or alternatively, order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal, or alternatively, order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ for goods in classes 9, 21 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 6324164

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4226148 of the word mark ‘BALLON D’OR’, for amongst others goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 25 and 41

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and partially accepted the opposition and the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there is a perceived conflict between the Community trade mark application and the earlier mark.

Pleas in law:

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC FLORES,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 15-11359

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL

and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Presently before the Court is the report issued on April 29, 2015 by Magistrate Judge David

R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court grant the plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although the report stated that the parties to this action could object to

and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections

have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation

waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the

Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that

the Court dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice [dkt. #5] is ADOPTED.

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 84
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

If the plaintiff files any additional frivolous filings, the Court may issue an order restricting the

plaintiff’s ability to commence future civil actions in the Eastern District of Michigan. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 27, 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 May 27, 2015

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-2-

2:15-cv-11359-DML-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 85
#### § 12.609 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as rating forming part of an engineering watch (RFPEW).

(a) To qualify for an STCW endorsement as an RFPEW in a manned engine room or to qualify to be designated to perform duties in a periodically unmanned engine room, an applicant must—

(1) Be not less than 16 years of age;

(2) Provide evidence of service as follows:

(i) Six months of seagoing service, which includes training and experience associated with engine room functions, and involves the performance of duties carried out under the supervision of an engineer officer or a qualified STCW rating; or

(ii) Proof of successful completion of a Coast Guard-approved or -accepted training, which includes not less than 2 months approved seagoing service; and

(3) Provide evidence of meeting the standard of competence as specified in Table A-III/4 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see [§ 12.103 of this part](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/part-12/section-12.103)).

(b) The Coast Guard may exempt an applicant from meeting any individual knowledge, understanding, and proficiency required in Section A-III/4 of the STCW Code. These exemptions must be approved by the Coast Guard based upon vessel type. Under these circumstances, the endorsement may include a corresponding limitation.

(c) Seafarers with the following national rating endorsements will be eligible for this endorsement upon completion of requirements designated in this section:

Table 1 to [§ 12.609](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-12.609)(c)—STCW Endorsement as RFPEW

| Entry path from national endorsements | Sea service under authority of the endorsement1 | Competence—STCW Table A-III/42 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Any QMED | None | Y |
| Wiper | 6 months | Y |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 This column provides the minimum additional service required of the seafarer in order to meet the requirements of this section. | | |
| 2 Complete any items in [paragraph (a)(3)](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-12.609#p-12.609(a)(3)) of this section not previously satisfied. | | |

(d) *Limitations.*

(1) STCW RFPEW endorsements issued in accordance with this section will be restricted to specific propulsion modes for steam, motor, or gas turbine-propelled vessels, as appropriate.

(2) STCW RFPEW endorsements issued in accordance with this section for motor or gas turbine-propelled vessels may be endorsed as limited to serve on vessels without auxiliary boilers, waste-heat boilers, or distilling plants. An applicant may qualify for removal of any of these limitations by demonstrating the appropriate competencies.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          23,410
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,971
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             15,449
<PP&E>                                           2,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,521
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                       6,773
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 113
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,521
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                  929
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                               564
<COMMISSIONS>                                    3,664
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    3,655
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    1,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                   6,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,073
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (9,974)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,974)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN D. WARD, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 17-3182 

(D.C. Nos. 5:16-CV-04109-DDC and 

5:01-CR-40050-DDC-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before us on the United States’ Motion for Summary Affirmance. 

The United States moves for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment in light 

of this court’s decision in United States v. Greer, 2018 WL 721675 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 

2018). In response, Appellant John D. Ward acknowledged that Greer answers the 

question raised in this appeal and the court could summarily affirm. However, he 

suggested that summary affirmance was premature prior to issuance of the mandate in 

Greer. On March 7, 2018, the court abated this appeal and its consideration of the United 

States’ motion for summary affirmance pending issuance of the mandate in Greer. 

 

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 11, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

The mandate in Greer issued on April 2, 2018. Accordingly, the abatement of this 

appeal is lifted and the United States’ Motion for Summary Affirmance is granted. In light 

of this court’s decision in United States v. Greer, 2018 WL 721675 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 

2018), the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam