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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DAFINKA STOJCEVSKI, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of DAVID 

STOJCEVSKI, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-11019

Hon. Linda V. Parker

Mag. Judge David R. Grand

IHRIE O’BRIEN

Robert D. Ihrie (P26451)

Harold A. Perakis (P35921)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

24055 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2000

St. Clair Shores, MI 48080

(586) 778-7778

ihrieobrien@aol.com

hperakis@ihrieobrienlaw.com

MACOMB COUNTY 

CORPORATION COUNSEL

John A. Schapka (P36731)

Robert S. Gazall (P41350)

Attorneys for Macomb County 

Defendants

One S. Main Street, 8th Floor

Mount Clemens, MI 48043

(586) 469-6346

john.schapka@macombgov.org

robert.gazall@macombgov.org

CHAPMAN LAW GROUP

Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., 

LL.M. (P37603)

Jonathan C. Lanesky (P59740)

Attorneys for Correct Care Solutions

Defendants

1441 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 310

Troy, MI 48098

(248) 644-6326

rchapman@chapmanlawgroup.com

jlanesky@chapmanlawgroup.com

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & 

Dicker, LLP

John T. Eads, III (P43815)

Cara M. Swindlehurst (P79953)

Co-Counsel for Macomb County 

Defendants 

17197 N. Laurel Park Dr., Suite 201

Livonia, MI 48152

(313) 327-3100

John.Eads@wilsonelser.com

Cara.Swindlehurst@wilsonelser.com

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 200, PageID.7567 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 2
2

DEFENDANTS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; MONICA 

CUENY; CHANTALLE BROCK; MICAL BEY-SHELLY; VICKY 

BERTRAM AND LAWRENCE SHERMAN, M.D.’S NOTICE OF 

WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM 

ELICITING EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT 

ROBERT GREIFINGER, M.D. [DKT. NO. 191]

COMES NOW Defendants Correct Care Solutions, L.L.C.; Monica Cueny; 

Chantelle Brock; Mical Bey-Shelly; Vicky Bertram; and Lawrence Sherman, M.D. 

and per stipulation with all parties and the Court, moves to withdraw their pending 

Motion to Preclude Plaintiff From Eliciting Expert Testimony From Plaintiff’s 

Expert Robert Greifinger, M.D., (Dkt. No. 191) without prejudice to refiling at a 

later date after the Court resets the calendar.

As stipulated by:

/s/ Ronald W. Chapman Sr. /s/Harold A. Perakis

Ronald W. Chapman Sr. (P37603) Robert D. Ihrie (P26421)

Jonathan C. Lanesky (P59740) Harold A. Perakis (P35921)

Attorneys for CCS Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Robert S. Gazall /s/ John T. Eads, III

John A. Schapka (P36731) John T. Eads, III (P43815)

Robert S. Gazall (P41350) Cara M. Swindlehurst (P79953)

Attorneys for Macomb County Defendants Co-Counsel for Macomb 

County Defendants

Dated: February 21, 2020

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 200, PageID.7568 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.2

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





|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.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 10, 2005

| | /s/
    Hansine M. Ullberg                                                             
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name: Hansine M. Ullberg
    Title: Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with thequarterly report of TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Neil M. Kurtz, M.D., President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

1.             theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.             theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Neil M.  Kurtz, M.D.               |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Neil M. Kurtz,  M.D.                   |
|   |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

August 13, 2007

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

“This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before orafter the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.”

----
#### James C. Jewett and others, *Appellants, v.*William C. Pickersgill, *Respondent*.

Order affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J., and by Davis, P. J., dissenting.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

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

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

(1)

the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter endedSeptember 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and

(2)

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

Date:  November 12, 2009

*/s/ Alex Ferries*

Alex Ferries

Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act hasbeen furnished to UAGH, Inc. and will be retained by UAGH, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
§ 194.05-3 Chemical stores. ( a ) Chemical stores are those chemicals which possess one or more of the following properties and shall be classed, marked and labeled in accordance with 49 CFR part 172: ( 1 ) Explosives.
( 2 ) Flammable liquids.
( 3 ) Flammable solids.
( 4 ) Oxidizing materials.
( 5 ) Corrosive materials.
( 6 ) Compressed gasses.
( 7 ) Poisons.
( 8 ) Combustible liquids.
( 9 ) Other Regulated Materials (DOT Hazard Class “ORM”).
( b ) Substances for use in the chemistry laboratory, or to be stored in the chemical storeroom and generally covered under paragraph (a) of this section but not specifically listed by name in 49 CFR 172.101 must be approved by the Commandant (CG-OES) prior to being carried on board a vessel.
[CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36027, Sept. 16, 1988, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51051, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49240, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012]
Ap pe lla nt ha d an a

pp oin te d a tto r ne y, bu t late r fi le d a wr itt e n w a ive r of

the r igh t to c ouns e l. 1 See T ex. C ode C r im. P r oc. Ann. ar t. 1. 051(g) (We st S upp. 2007). Appellant’s or iginal attor ney ther eaf ter ser ved as s tand-by c ounsel until he was allowe d to withdr aw a nd was r eplac ed by another attor ney. Appellant per sonall y co n d u cted the de fense at tr ial. H e filed a pr o se notice of a pp e a l and did no t r e qu e st co un se l on app e a l. Ap pe lla nt wa s pr ov ide d a cop y of the a pp e llate r ecor d. 

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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 527 -CR

M e r lon Hine s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-04 -30 2710 , HO NORAB LE JO N N. WISSER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Following a benc h trial, appe llant Merlon Hines wa s fo u n d g uilty of ag g ravated sexual assault. See T e x. Pe n a l C o d e A n n . § 2 2
. 0 2 1 ( We s t S u p p . 2 0 0 7 )
. T h e c o u rt a ssessed punishment, enhanc ed by previous fe lony

convictions, at imprisonment for life. Ap pe lla nt re pr e se nts him se lf

on a pp e a l, a s h e did

a t tr ia l. His brief on a

ppeal wa s 1
or ig ina lly du e in Marc h 200 7. On a pp e lla nt’ s motio n, the tim e fo r fi lin g wa s exte nd e d thre e tim e s, the last extension being to November 16, 2007. On Dec ember 11, 2007, afte r no brief was filed a

nd no further extension of tim e was reque sted, the Court order ed appe llant to tender his brief for f iling2

no later tha

n J anuar y 4, 2008. The order advised appellant that if he did not f ile a brie f as or dere d, the appe al would be submitted for de cision without a brie f. No brie f has be en re ceive d. See Te x. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4) (consider ation of appe al without briefs).

We have e x amined the r ec ord and f ind no fundamenta l error or other matter that should be consider ed in the intere st of justice. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
# C_2011130EN.01001803.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/18

---

Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Yao N’Dré v Council

(Case T-122/11)

2011/C 130/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Yao N’Dré (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

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-118/11 Attey v Council.

Attey

Council

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15203]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending May 28, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions To Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0102.
    Date Filed: May 27, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope: June 17, 2011.
    Description: Application of FLY DOM N.V. d/b/a JET BUDGET (``JET 
BUDGET'') requesting a foreign air carrier permit and related exemption 
that would enable it to provide charter foreign air transportation of 
persons, property, cargo and mail between any point or points in the 
territory of the Netherlands Antilles and any point or points in the 
territory of the United States; and between any point or points in the 
territory of the United States and any point or points in a third 
country or countries, provided that, except with respect to cargo 
charters, such service constitutes part of a continuous operation, with 
or without a change of aircraft, that includes service to the 
Netherlands Antilles for the purpose of carrying local traffic between 
the Netherlands Antilles and the United States.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-15203 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

IMGC Global (PVT) Ltd. 

Under Contract No. F38604-l l-C-P500 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ASBCA No. 59129 

Mr. Sheikh Aizaz Rasheed 

Director 

Lt Col Matthew J. Mulbarger, USAF 

Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 

Capt Amy Siak, USAF 

Trial Attorney 

Marvin Gibbs, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 15 September 2015 

TERRENCE S. HARTMAN 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59129, Appeal of IMGC Global 

(PVT) LTD., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 HOMELAND SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATIONOctober 6, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Michael T. BriganteName:
    Michael T. BriganteTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financing and Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL HORACEK,

Plaintiff, 

v.

DANIEL HEYNS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 2:14-CV-13545

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

ORDER REVOKING IN PART “ORDER WAIVING PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING

FEE AND DIRECTING PERIODIC SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS OF THE FILING FEE”

Michigan prisoner Daniel Horacek filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He also filed a Motion for Waiver of Fees and Costs. The Court issued an Order Waiving

Prepayment of the Filing Fee and Directing Periodic Subsequent Payments of the Filing Fee. Now

before the Court is Plaintiff’s objection to that Order [dkt. 9].

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the

parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process,

removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $350. . . .” Plaintiff asserts that, under Owens v. Keeling,

461 F.3d 763 (6th Cir.2006), he was not “instituting” a suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

Instead, he argues he was refiling (after exhaustion of administrative remedies) a previously filed

civil rights action that was dismissed on exhaustion grounds by the United States District Court for

the Western District of Michigan. See Horacek v. Heyns, No. 2:13-cv-00280. In Owens, the Sixth

Circuit Court of Appeals held that “when a prisoner ‘refiles’ a complaint raising the same

prison-conditions claims as a complaint that was initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to

exhaust under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act], the prisoner need not pay an additional filing fee

2:14-cv-13545-GCS-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 12/05/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 181
under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).” Owens, 461 F.3d at 773. The district court in Owens was directed to

reimburse the plaintiff the fee he paid for the second, “refiled” complaint. Id.

The Court finds that this complaint is a refiling of the previously dismissed complaint. 

Plaintiff, therefore, is not required to pay an additional filing fee.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY REVOKES the portion of the Order Waiving Prepayment

of the Filing Fee and Directing Periodic Subsequent Payments of the Filing Fee requiring Plaintiff

to pay, in installments, the filing fee in this action. Plaintiff is not required to pay any portion of the

filing fee. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to refund to Plaintiff any portion of the filing fee

already collected. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

United States District Judge

Dated: December 5, 2014

2

2:14-cv-13545-GCS-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 12/05/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 182
§ 196.34-1 Application. ( a ) Provisions of this subpart shall apply to all vessels.
#### § 201.125 Attendance and mileage fees.

Persons attending hearings under requirement of subpoenas are entitled to the same fees and mileage as in the courts of the United States, to be paid by the party at whose instance the persons are called.
§ 196.19-1 Data required. For each ocean and coastwise vessel of 1,600 gross tons or over, the following apply: ( a ) The following maneuvering information must be prominently displayed in the pilothouse on a fact sheet: ( 1 ) For full and half speed, a turning circle diagram to port and starboard that shows the time and the distance of advance and transfer required to alter the course 90 degrees with maximum rudder angle and constant power settings.
( 2 ) The time and distance to stop the vessel from full and half speed while maintaining approximately the initial heading with minimum application of rudder.
( 3 ) For each vessel with a fixed propeller, a table of shaft revolutions per minute for a representative range of speeds.
( 4 ) For each vessel with a controllable pitch propeller a table of control settings for a representative range of speeds.
( 5 ) For each vessel that is fitted with an auxiliary device to assist in maneuvering, such as a bow thruster, a table of vessel speeds at which the auxiliary device is effective in maneuvering the vessel.
( b ) The maneuvering information must be provided in the normal load and normal light condition with normal trim for a particular condition of loading assuming the following— ( 1 ) Calm weather—wind 10 knots or less, calm sea;
( 2 ) No current;
( 3 ) Deep water conditions—water depth twice the vessel's draft or greater; and
( 4 ) Clean hull.
( c ) At the bottom of the fact sheet, the following statement must appear: Warning The response of the (name of the vessel) may be different from those listed above if any of the following conditions, upon which the maneuvering information is based, are varied: (1) Calm weather—wind 10 knots or less, calm sea; (2) No current; (3) Water depth twice the vessel's draft or greater. (4) Clean hull; and (5) Intermediate drafts or unusual trim.
( d ) The information on the fact sheet must be: ( 1 ) Verified six months after the vessel is placed in service; or
( 2 ) Modified six months after the vessel is placed into service and verified within three months thereafter.
( e ) The information that appears on the fact sheet may be obtained from: ( 1 ) Trial trip observations;
( 2 ) Model tests;
( 3 ) Analytical calculations;
( 4 ) Simulations;
( 5 ) Information established from another vessel of similar hull form, power, rudder and propeller; or
( 6 ) Any combination of the above. The accuracy of the information in the fact sheet required is that attainable by ordinary shipboard navigation equipment.
( f ) The requirements for information for fact sheets for specialized craft such as semi-submersibles, hydrofoils, hovercraft and other vessels of unusual design will be specified on a case by case basis.
[CGD 73-78, 40 FR 2689, Jan. 15, 1975, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58289, Sept. 29, 2014]
J- -o > 

HIS •'FM Cr T;V'::SPpRWiON 

February 24, 2010 

• • J I 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's application to provide 

new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to 

Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last December in reaching a 

landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New York and Los Angeles to 

Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between three of the world's financial and commerce 

centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance membership, have 

underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific market. American is likewise committed to 

New York and Los Angles - both vital focal points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education 

- providing unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits from these proposed 

new flights, as will American's customers and employees. However, we need your help to make the 

JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to fly from Kennedy to 

Haneda! 

Sincerely,
2:15-mj-30197-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 04/22/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1
2:15-mj-30197-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 04/22/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2
2:15-mj-30197-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 04/22/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3