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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Neil Emergy, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 15-11113

Joseph R. Burtch, M.D., Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER 

ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

10/26/15 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

This prisoner civil rights action is currently before the Court on an October 26, 2015

Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge David R. Grand (“the R&R”). (Docket

Entry No. 15). In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Grand recommends that this Court deny

Defendant Burtch’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 9) without prejudice. 

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after

being served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the

magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id. 

No party has filed objections to the R&R and the time permitted for doing so has now

passed.

1

2:15-cv-11113-SFC-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 249
The Court hereby ADOPTS the October 26, 2015 Report and Recommendation. IT IS

ORDERED that Defendant Burtch’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 9) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 24, 2015

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

November 24, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Kelly Winslow for Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager Generalist

2

2:15-cv-11113-SFC-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 11/24/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 250
MILK TRANSPORTATION OFFER

         On December 26, 2000, Con-ser, S.A.("Conser") issued to Mastellone
Hnos. S.A. ("MHSA") a Milk Transportation Offer, which was subsequently amended
on June 14, 2002, June 17, 2003, and September 19, 2003 (the "Milk
Transportation Offer"). The Milk Transportation Offer require Conser to provide
carrier services for raw milk from the producers' facilities to MHSAs' plants.
The effective date of the Milk Transportation Offer is January 1, 2001.

         Obligations under the Milk Transportation Offer expire on January 1,
2006. However, the Milk Transportation Offer is automatically extended for
subsequent periods of five years, unless either Conser or MHSA notifies the
other party at least 365 days prior to the automatic renewal date that Conser or
MHSA desires to exit the Milk Transportation Offer.

         Under the Milk Transportation Offer, Conser will coordinate, carry and
assist MHSA in the hiring of a transportation company, for the carrying of milk
from the dairy farms to MHSA. Conser must hire carriers to transport raw milk
from the dairy farms to MHSA's plants. If Conser cannot hire a carrier Conser is
responsible for transporting the milk. Conser assumes the risk of loss or damage
from the raw milk producers' pick-up sites to the factories. Finally, Conser
must ensure that the carriers' performance meet national, health,
transportation, and insurance codes as well as the MHSA s' milk shipping
standards; must control the quality of the milk transported, and will control at
the relevant dairy farms the completion of MHSA's imposed standards.

         MHSA has agreed to pay Conser the following retribution: (i) for the
services of hiring, coordination and technical assistance, a monthly fee of
$150,000 plus value added tax. (ii) for transportation services rendered
directly by Conser, based on the amount of milk transported for MHSA, all of
Conser's costs as described under the Milk Transportation Offer, and additional
7,5% of the total carrier costs; (iii) for transportation services rendered by
third parties, MHSA will pay all third party carrier costs as described under
the Milk Transportation Offer, plus an additional 12,50% of said amount.

         Under the Milk Transportation Offer Conser will bill its retribution on
a monthly basis, and MHSA will pay such bill within five business days from
receipt thereof.

         If a MHSA fails to pay Conser for 20 consecutive days or for 60
alternate days, during a period of one year, Conser may rescind the Milk
Transportation Offer or suspend performance of its obligations until MHSA pays
all outstanding debts owed to Conser. Finally, both MHSA and Conser have the
right to rescind the a Milk Transportation Offer if a party is insolvent.

         According to the Milk Transportation Offer, Conser is liable vis a vis
MHSA from any claim brought to MHSA with respect to Conser's employees.
Furthermore,


Conser has agreed to fulfill all the requirements imposed under employment
applicable rules and regulations and to control the fulfillment by the
independent carriers.
#### John J. Betz, *Appellant, v.*Elias Davis and Eleanor Davis, *Respondents, Impleaded,*with others.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00299- CR NO. 03-05-00300- CR NO. 03-05-00301- CR NO. 03-05-00302- CR NO. 03-05-00303- CR NO. 03-05-00304- CR NO. 03-05-00305- CR NO. 03-05-00306- CR NO. 03-05-00307- CR

Dus ti n M c M anus , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS. 30 3213 0, 3032 131, 30 3213 2, 3032 133, 30 3213 4, 3032 135, 30 3213 6, 3032 137 & 203 4490

HO NORAB LE BO B PERK INS, JUDGE P RESIDING

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N
In eac h of th es e ca uses, Dustin McManus see ks to appea l from a judgment of conviction for a g g ravated assault. The sentenc es wer e imposed on November 9, 2004. There was a timely motion for new t rial. The deadline for perf ecting appea l was there fore Fe bruar y 7, 2005. Tex. R
. Ap p . P. 26.2(a)( 2). The notice s of appe al wer e filed on Ma y 24, 2005. Under

the circ umstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appea ls in any manner other than by2

dismiss ing the m for w ant of jurisdi ction. Se eSla ton v . S tate , 981 S.W .2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 98 ); Ol iv o v . S

tate , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522-23 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996). The a ppeals a re dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: June 14, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
# C_2011130EN.01002503.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/25

---

Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Mangou v Council

(Case T-148/11)

2011/C 130/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Mangou (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard and L. Aliot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Philippe MANGOU, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Philippe MANGOU, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

| — | consequently,






  — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

| — | alternatively, order that the name of Mr Philippe MANGOU be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, order that the name of Mr Philippe MANGOU be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.

Guiai Bi Poin

Council

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1878]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Special Medical Advisory Group; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Special Medical 
Advisory Group will meet on May 14, 2007. The meeting will be held in 
Room 830 at VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 
The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Group is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of 
disabled veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Department's 
Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
    The agenda for the meeting will include discussion of environment 
of care, polytrauma/medical evaluations, an update on information 
technology, and women veterans health.
    Any member of the public wishing to attend should contact Juanita 
Leslie, Office of Administrative Operations (10B2), Veterans Health 
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs at (202) 273-5882. No 
time will be set aside at this meeting for receiving oral presentations 
from the public. Statements, in written form, may be submitted to 
Juanita Leslie before the meeting or within 10 days after the meeting.

    Dated: April 10, 2007.

    By direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-1878 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50259

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO TOVAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-232-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Tovar has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Tovar has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MATTHEW STANDISH,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:15-cv-10983

v. Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. 

Stafford

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB

Defendant.

________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

This matter having settled, the parties, by and through the undersigned 

counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that all claims that were asserted, could have 

been asserted, and/or should have been asserted in the above captioned matter are 

hereby dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party to bear its own fees and costs;

The Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises;

IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

s/Gerald E. Rosen

Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

United States District Judge

Dated: May 11, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-10983-GER-EAS ECF No. 9 filed 05/11/15 PageID.39 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATED AND AGREED TO:

By: _/s/ W. Kent Carter__________

W. Kent Carter

Anthony A. Agosta (P57355)

Clark Hill PLC

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 965-8300

wcarter@clarkhill.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: May 11, 2015

By: /s/ Susan M. McKeever______

Susan M. McKeever (P73533)

Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC

3001 W. Big Beaver Road

Suite 600 

Troy, MI 48084

(248) 822-7800

mckeever@bsplaw.com

Katheryn M. Lloyd (0075610)

Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP

380 Plaza, Suite 1300

280 North High Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 365-4100

lloyd@carpenterlipps.com

Attorney for Defendant

Dated: May 11, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-10983-GER-EAS ECF No. 9 filed 05/11/15 PageID.40 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32



     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I,  Carey  G.  Birmingham,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly  Report  of  International  Test  Systems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal  quarter  ended  June  30,  2005  fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that
information  contained  in  such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of International Test
Systems,  Inc.

 Date: September 8, 2006

                                       By: /s/ Carey G. Birmingham
                                          ------------------------
                                          Carey G. Birmingham,
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Principal Accounting Officer

<PAGE>
#### Jeanne F. Isaacs, *Respondent, v.*Solomon Isaacs, Appellant.

Order modified as stated in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
Form of Certificate Evidencing Shares of Common Stock



	
	



  
 [GRAPHIC] [CONMED CORPORATION][GRAPHIC] 
 COMMON STOCK PAR VALUE $.01 INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CUSIP 207410 10 1 
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES, PAR VALUE $.01 EACH,
OF THE COMMON STOCK OF 
 CONMED Corporation 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and a facsimile of its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed. 
 Dated:                                     
   Thomas M.
Acey                                        
                    Eugene R. Comsartr 
 [Corporate Seal]                         Treasurer and
Secretary                                       
         Chairman of the Board, CEO and President 
 Countersigned and Registered:

 REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER COMPANY, 
 BY                         
 Transfer Agent and Registrar 
 Authorized Signature 






 

 
  
 CONMED CORPORATION

 The Corporation will furnish to any shareholder upon request and without charge, a full statement of the designation,
relative rights, preferences and limitations of the shares of each class authorized to be issued and the designation, relative rights, preferences and limitations of each series of any class of preferred shares authorized to be issued in series so
far as the same have been fixed and the authority of the Board of Directors to designate and fix the relative rights, preferences and limitations of other series. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:

 TEN COM—as tenants in common 
 TEN ENT—as tenants by the entireties 
 JT TEN—as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and not as tenants in common 
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT—Custodian 
 (Cust) (Minor) 
 under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act 
 (State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 For value received, hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto 
 Please insert social security or other identifying number of assignee 
 Please print or typewrite name and address including postal zip code of assignee 
 Shares of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

 Dated 
 Notice: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the Certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2213 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2213

    To reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2009

 Mr. Kind (for himself and Mr. Gerlach) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION 
              ACT.

    Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 6109) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for each of fiscal 
        years 2006 through 2010 the amount specified for that fiscal 
        year in subsection (b)'' and inserting ``the amounts specified 
        in subsection (b)''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
    ``(b) Authorized Amount.--The amounts referred to in subsection (a) 
are the following:
            ``(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
            ``(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
            ``(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
            ``(4) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
            ``(5) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
            ``(6) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.''.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

264 

KA 10-01364 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

JOSEPH V. COSTANTINO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DOUGLAS A. GOERSS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah

A. Haendiges, J.), rendered March 25, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

(see People v Griffin, 239 AD2d 936).

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Regina Rucker, ex rel. Estate of 

Jayvion Rucker-Todd, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hyatt Regency Dearborn, et al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/

Case No. 14-cv-11684 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE [44] 

 This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion for an order 

requiring non-party witness Cheneka Gardner to show cause why she 

should not be held in contempt for failing to appear for her deposition 

on June 15, 2015. (Dkt. 44.) Defendants issued a subpoena on May 21, 

2015, and served Gardner by process server on May 28, 2015. (Dkt. 44-

6, Ex. 5 to Defs.’ Mot.) Defendants served Gardner with a copy of their 

motion by certified mail. (Dkt. 44, Defs.’ Mot. ¶ 14.) 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g) permits the issuing court to hold in contempt 

a person who has been served with a subpoena but “fails without 

5:14-cv-11684-JEL-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 06/22/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 782
2 

adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion (Dkt. 44) is GRANTED; and 

Cheneka Gardner is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, by 

Monday, July 6, 2015, why she should not be held in contempt for 

failing to appear for her June 15, 2015 deposition. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 22, 2015 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 22, 2015. 

s/Holly Monda 

HOLLY MONDA, in the absence 

of FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

5:14-cv-11684-JEL-MJH Doc # 45 Filed 06/22/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 783
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00411-CV

EX PARTE ROBIN DENISE HARRIS

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCC-11-40473

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Texas Department of Public Safety appealed the trial court’s “Order to Clear 

Record” rendered on May 18, 2011. By the Order, the trial court granted Robin Denise 

Harris’s “Petition to Clear Record.” The parties have now presented this Court with a 

Joint Motion to Reverse and Render Judgment which was filed on December 12, 2011. 

In the motion the parties explain that they agree Harris is not entitled to an expunction 

of records related to her arrest, see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.01(a)(2) (West 

Supp. 2011), and agree that an order to reverse and render judgment would resolve all 

issues in the appeal. The parties also agreed to pay their own costs in this appeal. 

The motion is signed by the attorney for the Texas Department of Public Safety 

and by Harris.
Ex parte Harris Page 2

The parties’ motion is granted. The trial court’s “Order to Clear Record” is 

reversed and an order denying Robin Denise Harris’s “Petition to Clear Record” is 

rendered.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Reversed and rendered

Opinion delivered and filed December 21, 2011

[CV06]