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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GERALDINE BARKER, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11635 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS 

CASE WITH PREJUDICE [ECF #17] 

This matter having come before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to 

Dismiss Case with Prejudice, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 16, 2015 

 

2:15-cv-11635-MFL-EAS Doc # 18 Filed 10/16/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 643
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on October 16, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11635-MFL-EAS Doc # 18 Filed 10/16/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 644
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 10-3, PageID.150 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 10-3, PageID.151 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 10-3, PageID.152 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6312

LANCE ALBERT SNYDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; G. L.

WOODARD, Superintendent,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-97-273-2)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance Albert Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petition. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely,

specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Appellant lodged only general objections to

the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to lodge specific objections will waive appellate review. Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d

505, 507-09 (6th Cir. 1991); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015,

1019 (7th Cir. 1988). See generally Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d

841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
3

quately presented in the materials before the Court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending October 29, 2005

|Filer                               | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------------------- | ----------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|FIRST WYOMING FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A1       | First Wyoming Financial Corporation, Wyoming, DE, to form a bank holding company by acquiring First National Bank of Wyoming, Wyoming, DE.                                                | Newspaper:11/28/2005Federal Register:11/21/2005
|Newspaper:                          | 11/28/2005 
|Federal Register:                   | 11/21/2005 
|FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION        | * 3A5       | Fulton Financial Corporation, Lancaster, PA, to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of Columbia Bancorp, Columbia, MD, and thereby indirectly acquire The Columbia Bank, Columbia, MD. | Newspaper:11/20/2005Federal Register:11/21/2005
|Newspaper:                          | 11/20/2005 
|Federal Register:                   | 11/21/2005 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 189.25-1 Prerequisite of reissuance of certificate of inspection. ( a ) An inspection for certification is a prerequisite of the reissuance of a certificate of inspection.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Cheryl L. Whalen,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the Company as of and for the period covered by the report.





Date:  May 15, 2003                    By: /s/ Cheryl L. Whalen
      ----------------                     ------------------------------------
                                           Cheryl L. Whalen, Executive Vice
                                             President and Chief Financial
                                             Officer
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATf OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

GARY CHARLES NESKEY,

Appellant.

No. 73011-8-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: July 18, 2016

o

CO

ST.'

ro

a •

Schindler, J. — For the first time on appeal, Gary Charles Neskey argues the

mandatory deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fee statute is unconstitutional as applied to an

indigent defendant and violates equal protection. We considered and rejected the same

arguments in State v. Shelton, No. 72848-2-I, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. June 20,

2016)| and State v. Lewis, No. 72637-4-I, slip op. at 1(Wash. Ct. App. June 27, 2016).

Neskey also argues the court erred in ordering him to submit another DNA

sample. But Neskey does not show the court abused its discretion in ordering him to

submit a DNA sample. Lewis, slip op. at 10-11.

And because the statement of additional grounds does not inform us of the

"nature and occurrence of[the] alleged errors," we do not consider it. RAP 10.10(c);
No. 73011-8-1/2

State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008).

We affirm the judgment and sentence.

^Q^WP.Eer

WE CONCUR:
#### § 308.500 Authority.

The Secretary of Transportation has delegated authority to the Maritime Administrator to perform the functions vested in the Secretary by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 539, which authority includes the insurance set forth in this Subpart, as provided under 46 U.S.C. 53903(a)(3). For the purposes of this Subpart F—War Risk Cargo Insurance, the terms “cargo” and “cargoes” as used herein shall include loaded or empty containers located aboard American and foreign-flag vessels insured under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 539. Cargo war risk insurance will be written under either an open policy or a facultative policy in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20160 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

D-1 CLELAN T. JONES, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

AMENDMENT TO PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

 On or about January 31, 2018, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of 

Forfeiture (Dkt. No. 24) forfeiting Defendant’s right, title or interest in the One (1) 

Glock Inc., 23 Pistol, CAL:40, Serial No. CZL680US. 

 According to the terms of the POF, the government served all potential third 

party claimants with notice of the government’s intention to forfeit the subject 

Firearm based on its involvement in the offense of conviction. 

On or about February 26, 2018, third-party petitioner Thomas F. Vasicek filed 

a timely and proper petition for the return of the subject Firearm. 

The United States and Mr. Vasicek have reached an independent agreement 

for the return of the One (1) Glock Inc., 23 Pistol, CAL:40, Serial No. CZL680US, 

after the conclusion of this criminal case and expiration or any appeals periods, 

pending approval by the Court by and through this amendment. 
2 

The government has now filed an application requesting that the Preliminary 

Order of Forfeiture be amended so that the One (1) Glock Inc., 23 Pistol, CAL:40, 

Serial No. CZL680US can be returned to its lawful owner, Thomas F. Vasicek. 

The government has provided notice of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to 

third parties as required by statute and no person other than the Mr. Vasicek has 

made a claim of ownership to the Firearm. 

The Court finds there is good cause to amend the Preliminary Order of 

Forfeiture, and therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Preliminary Order 

of Forfeiture is amended as follows: 

The right, title and interest in the One (1) Glock Inc., 23 Pistol, CAL:40, Serial 

No. CZL680US is returned to its lawful owner, Thomas F. Vasicek, is not forfeited 

to the United States, and the firearm may be released to Thomas F. Vasicek by the 

United States when it is no longer needed by the government as evidence, including 

in any direct appeal or thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 21, 2018 

 
3 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on May 21, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
§ 298.23 Refinancing. ( a ) We may approve guarantees of Obligations to be secured by one or more Vessels or a Shipyard Project issued to refinance existing Title XI debt for either Vessels or for Shipyard Project and existing non-Title XI debt, so long as the existing debt has been previously issued for one of the purposes set forth in sections 1104(a)(1) through (4) of the Act. Section 1104 (a) (1) of the Act requires that, if the existing indebtedness was incurred more than one year after the delivery or redelivery of the related Vessel or Shipyard Project, the proceeds of such Obligations will be applied to the construction, reconstruction or reconditioning of other Vessels or Shipyard Project or as provided in § 298.24.
( b ) We shall require any security lien on the Vessel(s) or Shipyard Project to be discharged immediately before we place a Mortgage or other security interest on any of the above assets. You must satisfy all necessary eligibility requirements as set forth in subpart B of this part, including economic soundness.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARK HICKS, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:15-cv-11561

)

NORTHSTAR LOCATION )

SERVICES, LLC, )

) 

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, MARK HICKS, (“Plaintiff”), through his attorney, Agruss Law Firm, LLC, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismisses this case, with 

prejudice, against Defendant, NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC. 

DATED: July 9, 2015 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: _/s/ Michael S. Agruss SBN: 259567

Michael S. Agruss 

Agruss Law Firm, LLC

4619 N. Ravenswood Ave. Suite 303A

Chicago, IL 60640

Tel: 312-224-4695

Fax: 312-253-4451

michael@agrusslawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 09, 2015, I electronically filed the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Clerk 

of the U.S. District Court, using the CM/ECF system. I e-mailed a copy of the filed Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal to Chief Compliances Officer, Linda M. Leising, at 

lleising@northstarlocation.com .

By:_/s/ Michael S. Agruss ______

Michael S. Agruss

2:15-cv-11561-MAG-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 07/09/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 13
§ 34.15-50 Lockout valves—T/ALL. ( a ) A lockout valve must be provided on any carbon dioxide extinguishing system protecting a space over 6,000 cubic feet in volume and installed or altered after July 9, 2013. “Altered” means modified or refurbished beyond the maintenance required by the manufacturer's design, installation, operation and maintenance manual.
( b ) The lockout valve must be a manually operated valve located in the discharge manifold prior to the stop valve or selector valves. When in the closed position, the lockout valve must provide complete isolation of the system from the protected space or spaces, making it impossible for carbon dioxide to discharge in the event of equipment failure during maintenance.
( c ) The lockout valve design or locking mechanism must make it obvious whether the valve is open or closed.
( d ) A valve is considered a lockout valve if it has a hasp or other means of attachment to which, or through which, a lock can be affixed, or it has a locking mechanism built into it.
( e ) The master or person-in-charge must ensure that the valve is locked open at all times, except while maintenance is being performed on the extinguishing system, when the valve must be locked in the closed position.
( f ) Lockout valves added to existing systems must be approved by the Commandant as part of the installed system.
[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33873, June 7, 2012]
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Central Federal Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date:      November 13, 2008
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
§ 4.05-2 Incidents involving foreign tank vessels. ( a ) *Within the navigable waters of the United States, its territories, or possessions.* The marine casualty reporting and investigation criteria of this part apply to foreign tank vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States, its territories, or possessions. A written marine casualty report must be submitted under § 4.05-10 of this chapter.
( b ) *Outside the U.S. navigable waters and within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).* The owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge of a foreign tank vessel involved in a marine casualty must report under procedures detailed in 33 CFR 151.15, immediately after addressing resultant safety concerns, whenever the marine casualty involves, or results in— ( 1 ) Material damage affecting the seaworthiness or efficiency of the vessel; or
( 2 ) An occurrence involving significant harm to the environment as a result of a discharge, or probable discharge, resulting from damage to the vessel or its equipment. The factors you must consider to determine whether a discharge is probable include, but are not limited to— ( i ) Ship location and proximity to land or other navigational hazards;
( ii ) Weather;
( iii ) Tide current;
( iv ) Sea state;
( v ) Traffic density;
( vi ) The nature of damage to the vessel; and
( vii ) Failure or breakdown aboard the vessel, its machinery, or equipment.
[USCG-2000-6927, 70 FR 74676, Dec. 16, 2005]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 25324)    
                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, April 27, 2007, 1 p.m. to April 27, 2007, 3 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 23, 2007, FR #07-2037.                

The meeting will be held on 4/26/2007 from 2-3 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: April 26, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2192 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
PennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalPrtj)RachelCarsonStateOfficeBuiJdin?tcS1P.O.Box20631Harrisburg,PA17105-2063May31,2007Secretary717-787-2814Mr.DonaldS.WelshRegionalAdministratorU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIIIMailCode3RAOO1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103-2029DearMr.Welsh:EnclosedforyourapprovalisarevisiontoPennsylvania’sStateImplementationPlan(SIP)concerningamendmentstothePennsylvaniaCleanVehicles(PCV)Program.Thesubmittalincludesthreecopiesofafinalrulemakingthatamends25Pa.CodeChapter121andChapter126,SubchapterD(relatingtothePCVprogram).TheoriginalPCVprogramrequirementsincorporatedbyreferencecertainprovisionsoftheCaliforniaLowEmissionsVehicle(CALEV)program.ThenewlypromulgatedPCVregulationpostponesthecurrentmodelyear(MY)2006compliancedatetoMY2008andupdatesprogram-relateddefinitionscontainedinChapter121.ThefinalrulemakingalsoclarifiesthePCVprogramrequirementsandspecifiesatransitionmechanismforcompliancewiththeprogram.TheserequirementsareoneofthePennsylvaniameasurestoachieveandmaintaintheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardforozone.ThisSIPsubmissionincludesthefinalrulemakingpublishedinthePennsylvaniaBulletinonDecember9,2006(36Pa.B.7424),documentationofthepublicparticipationprocessincludingproofofpublicnotice,theDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection’scommentandresponsedocument,andasrequestedbyyourstaffdocumentationofthemethodologyusedtoestimatetheairqualitybenefitsattributabletothePCVprogramandanestimateofthosestatewideairqualitybenefits.ShouldyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisSIPrevision,pleasecontactJoyceE.Epps,Director,BureauofAirQuality,bye-mailatjeepps@state.pa.usorbytelephoneat717-787-9702.EnclosurePrintedonRecycledPaperRECEIVEDJUN112007DivisionDirector(3A)AnEqualOpportunityEmployerwww.dep.state.pa.us
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 05/21/15 Page 4 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 05/21/15 Page 5 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 05/21/15 Page 6 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 05/21/15 Page 7 of 8
Case 5:15-cv-11847-JCO-RSW ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 05/21/15 Page 8 of 8