alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20309 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

MICHAEL PIAR, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER TO CLARIFY EXHAUSTION STATUS 

 Defendant Michael Piar is currently incarcerated at Ashland FCI. On May 21, 

2020, Piar filed a letter requesting that this Court consider him for compassionate 

release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (See Letter, ECF No. 43.) 

Under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), a defendant may not file a motion for 

compassionate release until “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative 

rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s 

behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the 

defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” The exhaustion requirement in 

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) is “mandatory” and is not subject to any “judge-made 

exceptions.” United States v. Alam, --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 2845694, at *2–4 (6th Cir. 

June 2, 2020). 

Piar’s letter does not provide the Court with enough information to determine 

whether he has met this exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the Court hereby 

Case 2:15-cr-20309-MFL-EAS ECF No. 44 filed 06/26/20 PageID.217 Page 1 of 3
2 

DIRECTS Piar to file a supplement to his letter that informs the Court whether he has 

submitted a written request for compassionate release to the warden at Ashland FCI. If 

Piar has submitted a written request for compassionate release to the warden at Ashland 

FCI, then Piar shall also inform the Court of the date on which he submitted the request, 

whether the warden responded to the request, and the date of the warden’s response (if 

any). 

If Piar has not submitted a request for compassionate release to the warden, then 

the Court will dismiss his current filing (ECF No. 43) without prejudice. In that event, 

Piar would be permitted to refile a motion seeking compassionate release upon 

exhausting his remedies. 

The Court advises Piar that – if he has not already done so – he should submit a 

request for compassionate release to the warden at Ashland FCI if he wishes to file a 

later motion for compassionate release in this Court. Submitting a request to the warden 

is the first step in the process of seeking compassionate release, and making the request 

will permit Piar (after he has either exhausted his administrative remedies or waited 30 

days after the warden received his request) to file a motion for compassionate release 

in this Court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 26, 2020 

 

Case 2:15-cr-20309-MFL-EAS ECF No. 44 filed 06/26/20 PageID.218 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 26, 2020, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9761 

Case 2:15-cr-20309-MFL-EAS ECF No. 44 filed 06/26/20 PageID.219 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,017,512
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,888
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,945,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 19,244,799
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     98,246,349
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,559,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             132,397,207
<DEPOSITS>                                 112,742,906
<SHORT-TERM>                                 5,888,829
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            550,780
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,094,338
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,120,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             132,397,207
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,568,537
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,334,074
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               335,991
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            10,238,602
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,963,675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,330,918
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,907,684
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,470,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               8,257
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,704,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                431,441
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     275,119
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   275,119
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.11
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,809,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   392,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             1,508,922
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              7,147,446
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,825,319
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  803,942
<RECOVERIES>                                    67,776
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,559,153
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,559,153
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
98-2234.

#### Wright v. Summit Cty. Jail.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–141

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2500, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,

2002

JULY 16, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 192]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 192, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2500, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, under an

open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the

bill. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph. The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations

bill) against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in

the rule.

The rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted

their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule

provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Æ
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-20351

Waseem Alam, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

______________________________/

MEMORANDUM ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S PENDING MOTION FOR 

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

Defendant Waseem Alam has filed a second motion for compassionate release. The Court 

denied his first motion because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Alam 

appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court’s decision. Having now properly exhausted, 

Alam again seeks compassionate release from this Court.

Unfortunately, Alam has traded one procedural bar for another. Alam’s filing of a notice 

of appeal transferred jurisdiction over this case to the Sixth Circuit. See Lewis v. Alexander, 987 

F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1993) (“As a general rule, the district court loses jurisdiction over an action 

once a party files a notice of appeal, and jurisdiction transfers to the appellate court.”) And “[a] 

pending appeal that involves a defendant’s sentence deprives a district court of jurisdiction to rule 

on the defendant’s motion for compassionate release.” United States v. Wall, -- F.3d --, 2020 WL 

1934963 at *2 (E.D. Mich. April 22, 2020). Although the Sixth Circuit has issued its decision, 

jurisdiction will not be transferred back to this Court until the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate. See

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 347 filed 06/19/20 PageID.2705 Page 1 of 2
2

Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 41(a)(1) (“A mandate is the document by which this 

court relinquishes jurisdiction and authorizes the originating court or agency to enforce this court’s 

judgment.”) In the meantime, the Court cannot take any action that could “alter the status of the 

case as it rests before the Court of Appeals.” Dayton Indep. School Dist. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. 

Co., 906 F.2d 1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1990), quoted in United States v. Gallion, 534 F. App’x 303, 

310 (6th Cir. 2013). 

Instead, the Court is limited to the relief available in Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(c), and can only 

(1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) issue an indicative ruling, stating that

it would grant the motion if the Court of Appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises 

a substantial issue. After review of the briefing, the Court concludes that it should defer 

considering the merits of Alam’s motion until after it regains jurisdiction. Once the Sixth Circuit 

issues its mandate, the Court will schedule a Zoom hearing on Alam’s pending motion. Given the 

nature of the relief sought, this hearing will be held as soon as is possible. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox

Sean F. Cox 

United States District Judge

Dated: June 19, 2020 

Case 2:15-cr-20351-SFC-MKM ECF No. 347 filed 06/19/20 PageID.2706 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FRANK TUKA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 2:15-cv-10263 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, a/k/a AMTRAK, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER CANCELLING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

The parties have filed a joint 26(f) plan, suggesting: 

“Plaintiff intends to depose his co-workers, supervisors, representatives of 

Defendant’s safety department and Defendant’s experts with regard to both 

incidents. Amtrak intends to depose plaintiff, his co-workers, and plaintiff’s 

treating healthcare providers, along with any experts retained by plaintiff. 

The parties therefore request eight months for discovery from the date of 

the Rule 26(f) conference, with discovery closing on November 1, 2015.” 

 This appears to be an uncomplicated case, and the court will accept the parties’ 

suggestion. A scheduling order will be issued accordingly. There appears to be no 

further need for a scheduling conference at this time, but if the parties have unresolved 

business to discuss with the court, they should jointly advise the court’s case manager. 

IT IS ORDERED that the April 16, 2015 scheduling conference is CANCELLED. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

 ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 14, 2015 

2:15-cv-10263-RHC-APP Doc # 10 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 38
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

and/or pro se parties on this date, April 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Lisa Wagner 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

 (313) 234-5522 

2:15-cv-10263-RHC-APP Doc # 10 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 39
§ 502.409 Arbitration awards. ( a ) ( 1 ) The award in an arbitration proceeding under this subchapter shall include a brief, informal discussion of the factual and legal basis for the award, but formal findings of fact or conclusions of law shall not be required.
( 2 ) Exceptions to or an appeal of an arbitrator's decision may not be filed with the Commission.
( b ) An award entered in an arbitration proceeding may not serve as an estoppel in any other proceeding for any issue that was resolved in the proceeding. Such an award also may not be used as precedent or otherwise be considered in any factually unrelated proceeding.
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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending January 3, 2009

|Filer                                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                              
|--------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY | * Branch       | Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Buffalo, New York, to establish a branch to be located at 10245 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Montogomery County, Maryland ("Wildwood Branch" - RSSD 3866748). | Newspaper:01/10/2009Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | 01/10/2009    
|Federal Register:                       | Not applicable

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
#### John Baldwin, *Appellant, v.*Nathaniel Van Sickle and others, *Respondents.*

— Order granting new trial affirmed, with costs to abide event. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
[Hillsborough,

June, 1879.]

#### Stearns *v.*Wallace.

*W. W.*Bailey, for the plaintiff.

*Wadleigh*Wallace, for the defendant.

No briefs furnished.

Doe, C. J.

There is nothing in the case to take it out of the general rule that an infant is responsible for his torts. *Fitts*v. Hall, 9 N. H. 441; *School District*v. *Bragdon,*23 N. H. 507, 516; *Beckley v. Newcomb,*24 N. H. 359; *Woodman*v. *Hubbard,*25 N. H. 67, 73; *Prescott*v. *Norris,*32 N. H. 101; *Eaton*v. *Hill,*50 N. H. 235; Cooley Torts 103.

*Exception overruled.*

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 24.01


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Capital Re Corporation of our report dated January 21, 1997, included in the
1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Capital Re Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedules of Capital Re
Corporation listed in Item 14(a).  These schedules are the responsibility of the
Corporation's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-47723) pertaining to the Capital Re Corporation 1992 Stock
Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-73122) pertaining
to the Capital Re Corporation Directors' Stock Option Plan of our report dated
January 21, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedules included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Capital Re Corporation.


                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 25, 1997
Agenda Date: February 21, 2013

Prepared By: Ann Hobbs, Air Quality Specialist

Topic: Amendment of Rule 214, Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks

Action Requested:

1) Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the adoption of proposed amendments to Rule 214 

Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks.

2) Adopt Resolution #13-02 (Attachment #1), thereby approving amended Rule 214, Transfer 

of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, as shown in Exhibit I.

3) Adopt and approve the Findings in the Staff Report of Attachment #2.

Discussion: On April 9, 2009, the District Board adopted amended Rule 214, Transfer of 

Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, which provided an exemption for non-retail gasoline 

dispensing facilities from Phase II vapor recovery requirements when 95% of vehicles 

refueled at the facility are equipped with on-board vapor recovery systems. 

The District submitted the proposed amended rule to the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) for transmittal to the US EPA for inclusion in Placer County’s State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). In early 2012, the U.S. EPA contacted the District to discuss three areas of 

concern before the rule could be recommended for approval. These areas of concern were not 

part of the changes adopted. It should be noted that this rule was last revised on October 19, 

1993, and was approved into the SIP on April 30, 1997.

District staff worked with the U.S. EPA staff so that the proposed wording changes would be 

acceptable. Additional or modified wording has been added to the rule, along with updating

the rule to the standardized rule format. Finally, some grammar was corrected and obsolete 

sections were deleted as noted in Exhibit 1 of the Staff Report. 

Fiscal Impact: The amendment of Rule 214 will not have a fiscal impact on those sites required 

to install Phase II vapor recovery. The changes that are being made are not going to have to 

change the way the District has been administering this rule.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the District Board, in a public hearing:

1) Adopt Resolution #13-02, thereby approving amended Rule 214, Transfer of Gasoline into 

Vehicle Fuel Tanks; and

2) Adopt and approve the Findings in the Staff Report (Attachment #2).

Board Agenda

Public Hearing/Action
PCAPCD Agenda Item

February 21, 2013

Page 2

Attachments: #1: Resolution #13-02, Approving Amended Rule 214, Transfer of Gasoline 

into Vehicle Fuel Tanks.

#2 Staff Report
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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending July 3, 2010

|Filer                            | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                                 
|-------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANCO DO BRASIL S.A.             | FBSEA          | Banco do Brasil S.A., Brasilia, Brazil, to establish an additional branch at 600 Fifth Avenue and later relocate to 11 West 42nd Street, both of New York, New York, pursuant to Section 211.24(a)(2)(i)(A) of Regulation K.                                                                                                            | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                       | Not available 
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable
|WOORI FINANCE HOLDINGS CO., LTD. | * 3A3          | Woori Finance Holdings Co., Ltd, Seoul, Korea, to acquire at least 51 percent of the voting shares of Hanmi Financial Corp., Los Angeles, California, and thereby indirectly acquire Hanmi Bank ("Hanmi"), Los Angeles, California, pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the BHC Act of 1956, as amended, and Section 225.15 of Regulation Y. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/26/2010    
|Newspaper:                       | Not available 
|Federal Register:                | 07/26/2010    

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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