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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VICTOR WILSON, 

 Petitioner, Case Number: 15-11383 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

v. 

KENNETH MCKEE, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

Order Denying Petition for Appointment of 

Federal Defender Without Prejudice (ECF No. 44) 

 Victor Wilson filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

challenging his convictions for two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(a). On March 25, 2019, the Court granted Wilson’s 

motion to stay these proceedings while he exhausted his claims in state court and 

administratively closed the case. (ECF No. 39.) On January 27, 2022, the Court granted 

Wilson’s motion to continue the stay while he filed a second motion for collateral relief 

in state court based on newly-discovered evidence. (ECF No. 43.) Now before the Court 

is Wilson’s Petition for Appointment of Federal Defender. (ECF No. 44.) 

 Wilson states that he needs the assistance of counsel to investigate and develop 

claims related to newly-discovered evidence and to obtain a state court order requiring 

the State to release exculpatory material. A prisoner has no absolute right to counsel in a 

federal habeas corpus proceeding. Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Case 2:15-cv-11383-VAR-PTM ECF No. 45, PageID.3838 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

The appointment of counsel is within the Court’s discretion. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 

F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). 

 Wilson has not moved to reopen this case and it appears that he is still in the 

process of exhausting his state-court remedies. He does not assert that the state court 

lacks discretion to appoint him counsel or that qualified counsel is unavailable. He also 

does not show that he has requested appointment of counsel in state court and that his 

request has been denied. Wilson has not shown it is necessary or appropriate for the 

Court to authorize the use of federal resources to litigate his state court collateral action. 

 The Court DENIES the Petition for Appointment of Federal Defender (ECF No. 

44) WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If and when the stay is lifted and the habeas proceeding is 

reopened, Wilson may renew his request for appointment of counsel. 

 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: 1/31/2023 

Case 2:15-cv-11383-VAR-PTM ECF No. 45, PageID.3839 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 2
# C_2013038EN.01002302.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/23

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Dectane v OHIM — Hella (DAYLINE)

(Case T-463/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 38/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dectane GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by K. Klüpfel, then by K. Klüpfel and D. Botis, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. (Lippstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Schnekenbühl, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2011 (Case R 1231/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. and Dectane GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Statement      Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the **

**Sarbanes-Oxley      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

|   | A) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or                78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | B) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the                Report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                                                                                                                                                 |                           |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Dated: January              26, 2007 |                                                                                                                                                                            | /s/              Andrew Gordon |
|                                      | Andrew                GordonPresident,                Chief Executive Officer and Chief                Financial Officer (Principal                Executive and Accounting Officer) |

----
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3710

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Kenny Eugene Smart lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________ Submitted: February 15, 2021 Filed: March 4, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Kenny Smart was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and five years of supervised release. A few months after Smart completed his prison term, the districtcourt 1 revoked Smart's supervised release because, among other things, he committed

another crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court sentenced Smart to six months in prison and four years of supervised release. He maintains that this six-month prison term is substantively unreasonable. The record shows that Smart completed his imprisonment in May 2020. Since he challenges the reasonableness of his prison term only (and not the additional term of supervised release), his appeal is moot. See United States v. Hill , 889 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 2018); see also Owen v. United States , 930 F.3d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 2019). Appeal dismissed.

______________________________

1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ADJOURN TRIAL (ECF 

#71) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE (ECF #69) 

 On February 19, 2016, Defendant Curtis Scott (“Scott”) filed a motion to exclude 

the Government from offering certain evidence against him at trial (the “Motion to 

Exclude”). (See ECF #69.) On February 22, 2016, Scott filed a motion to adjourn his 

currently scheduled March 1, 2016, trial date (the “Motion to Adjourn”). (See ECF #71.) 

The Court held a hearing on both motions on February 26, 2016. 

 For the reasons stated on the record at the February 26, 2016, hearing, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Adjourn (ECF #71) is DENIED. IT IS 

FURTHERED ORDERED, for the reasons stated on the record, that the Motion to 

Exclude (ECF #69) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 

1. The evidence reflected and described in Exhibit A to the Government’s 

response to the Motion to Exclude (ECF #75-2) is excluded and shall not be 

mentioned and/or offered into evidence by the Government at trial unless 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 77 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 665
2 

and until the Government obtains express permission from the Court on the 

record or in a written order. 

2. The evidence reflected and described in Exhibits C and D to the 

Government’s response to the Motion to Exclude (ECF ## 75-4, 74-5) is 

excluded and shall not be mentioned and/or offered into evidence by the 

Government at trial unless and until the Government obtains express 

permission from the Court on the record or in a written order. 

3. The law enforcement officers who participated in Scott’s arrest on or about 

November 21, 2014, may testify as to the Dodge minivans they found in 

Mr. Scott’s driveway, the condition of the minivans, the content of the 

minivans, and that one of the minivans had been stolen. In addition, the 

fact that Mr. Scott has previously pleaded guilty to receiving the stolen 

minivan found in his driveway is admissible at trial. There shall be no 

testimony about and/or mention of any alleged connection between Mr. 

Scott and the actual theft of the minivan by a teenager unless and until the 

Government obtains express permission from the Court on the record or in 

a written order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: February 26, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 77 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 666
3 

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

counsel of record on February 26, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 77 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 667
§ 190.20-50 Heating and cooling. ( a ) All manned spaces must be adequately heated and cooled in a manner suitable to the purpose of the space.
( b ) Radiators and other heating apparatus must be so placed and shielded, where necessary, to avoid risk of fire, danger or discomfort to the occupants. Pipes leading to radiators or heating apparatus must be insulated where those pipes create a hazard to persons occupying the space.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ABDULLAH LAND, 

 

 Petitioner, Civil Action No. 

 14-CV-11683 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

LLOYD RAPELJE, 

 

 Respondent. 

_______________________________/ 

 

JUDGMENT 

 The above entitled matter having come before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith, a United States District Court Judge, presiding, and in 

accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 19, 2014. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner is GRANTED Leave to Appeal In Forma 

Pauperis. 

 Dated at Flint, Michigan, this 19th day of June, 2014. 

Dated: June 19, 2014 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Flint, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 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 19, 2014. 

 s/Deborah J. Goltz 

 DEBORAH J. GOLTZ 

 Case Manager 

 

4:14-cv-11683-MAG-PTM Doc # 6 Filed 06/19/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 88
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

 

I, Bruce N. Warnercertify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1 of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.   The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.   The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeor registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  November 19, 2007 | /s/  Bruce N. Warner          |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Bruce  N. Warner              |
|                     | Chief  Financial Office       |
|                     | Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        12-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>             09-30-1999
<CASH>                       55,956
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 4,483
<ALLOWANCES>                      0
<INVENTORY>                   7,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             68,421
<PP&E>                       26,141
<DEPRECIATION>                 (378)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               94,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           776
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                        160
<OTHER-SE>                   93,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 94,184
<SALES>                       4,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,836
<CGS>                           790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             19,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            2,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>             (15,477)
<INCOME-TAX>                (15,477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               0
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                (15,477)
<EPS-BASIC>                   .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .00


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7977

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FURMAN JONES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00063-LHT-1)

Submitted: August 1, 2014 Decided: August 13, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Furman Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Furman Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction and 

sentence. At the time Jones’ judgment of conviction was entered 

on the docket, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure required 

a defendant in a criminal case to file his notice of appeal 

within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a motion, upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an 

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 

(4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered judgment on January 25, 

2005. Jones filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2013. 

Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain 

an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as 

untimely.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 * We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a 

jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule. 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); Rice v. Rivera, 

617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Urutyan, 564 

F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Jones’ appeal is 

inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best 

interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to 

dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 

(10th Cir. 2008). 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
§ 159.007-7 Application for acceptance for production inspections and tests: Coast Guard action. ( a ) From the information submitted with the application, the Commandant determines whether or not the laboratory is accepted for production inspections and tests. The Commandant informs the manufacturer of the results of this determination, if the Commandant does not accept a laboratory, the reason for the disapproval will be given.
( b ) From the description of the laboratory's procedures for production inspections and tests, the Commandant determines whether or not those procedures are accepted. The Commandant informs the manufacturer of the results of this determination. If the Commandant does not accept the laboratory's procedures, the reasons why they are not accepted will be given.
----

----

Preamble

Table of Contents
          - Introduction 
          - Scope 
          - Qualification 
          - Calculation of Tier 1 Capital and Total Qualifying Capital 
          - Calculation of Risk-Weighted Assets 
          - Operational Risk 
          - Disclosure 

List of Acronyms

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

Plain Language

OCC Executive Order 12866

OTS Executive Order 12866 Determination

OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

OTS Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

Proposed Regulatory Text

Table of Contents
        - Part I
        - General Provisions
        - Part II
        - Qualifying Capital
        - Part III
        - Qualification
        - Part IV
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for General Credit Risk
        - Part V 
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Securitization Exposures
        - Part VI
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Equity Exposures
        - Part VII
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Operational Risk
        - Part VIII
        - Disclosure

List of Subjects

Authority and Issuance

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

Billing Codes

[FR Doc. 06-_____ Filed _____]Billing Codes 4810-33-P (25%), 6210-01-P (25%), 6714-01-P (25%), 6720-01-P (25%)

Basel II Capital AccordNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)

----

HomeBanking information and regulationAccessibilityContact us
§ 196.37-33 Instructions for changing steering gear. ( a ) Instructions in at least 1 ⁄ 2 inch letters and figures shall be posted in the steering engineroom, relating in order, the different steps to be taken in changing to the emergency steering gear. Each clutch, gear, wheel, lever, valve, or switch which is used during the changeover shall be numbered or lettered on a metal plate or painted so that the markings can be recognized at a reasonable distance. The instructions shall indicate each clutch or pin to be “in” or “out” and each valve or switch which is to be “opened” or “closed” in shifting to any means of steering for which the vessel is equipped. Instructions shall be included to line up all steering wheels and rudder amidship before changing gears.
#### § 201.74 Declaratory orders.

The Administration may issue a declaratory order to terminate a proceeding or to remove uncertainty. Petitions for the issuance thereof shall state clearly and concisely the nature of the controversy or uncertainty, shall cite the statutory authority involved, shall include a complete statement of the facts and grounds supporting the petition, together with a full disclosure of petitioner's interest.