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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DONALD G. MCDOWELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:14-cv-00334 

)

MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, )

INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION and ORDER

The Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.,

filed by Attorney Ryan T. Brown and Gordon & Rees LLP (Docket # 15) is SET for a hearing on

December 23, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., Fort Wayne time. Attorney Brown; Cheryl Cooper,

Monarch’s General Counsel; and Plaintiff’s counsel are to participate by telephone. The

preliminary pretrial conference previously set for that date and time (Docket # 12) is

VACATED. Monarch is reminded that a corporation cannot proceed pro se, that is, without an

attorney. See United States v. Hagerman, 545 F.3d 579, 581-82 (7th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a

corporation is not permitted to litigate in federal court unless it is represented by a lawyer

licensed to practice in that court); Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1427

(7th Cir. 1985) (“[C]orporations must appear by counsel or not at all.”). The Seventh Circuit

Court of Appeals has explained:

An individual is permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1654 to proceed pro se in a civil case in

federal court because he might be unable to afford a lawyer, or a lawyer’s fee

might be too high relative to the stakes in the case to make litigation worthwhile

other than on a pro se basis. . . . But the right to conduct business in a form that

confers privileges, such as the limited personal liability of the owners for tort or

contract claims against the business, carries with it obligations one of which is to
hire a lawyer if you want to sue or defend on behalf of the entity. Pro se litigation

is a burden on the judiciary, and the burden is not to be borne when the litigant

has chosen to do business in entity form. He must take the burdens with the

benefits.

Hagerman, 545 F.3d at 581-82 (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, if the Court grants Attorney Brown’s motion to withdraw, Monarch

must appear by successor counsel within the time to be set by this Court, or be subject to

an entry of default and default judgment. See id.; Kipp v. Royal & Sun Alliance Pers. Ins.

Co., 209 F. Supp. 2d 962, 963 (E.D. Wis. 2002). If successor counsel appears on behalf

of Monarch prior to December 23, 2014, the Court will cancel the hearing on the Motion

to Withdraw and reset the preliminary pretrial conference.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Opinion and Order to: 

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. 

Attention: Cheryl Cooper, General Counsel

10965 Decatur Road

Philadelphia, PA 19154 

SO ORDERED. 

Entered this 9th day of December 2014.

S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harvey
      Houtkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      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)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





**/S/
                HARVEY HOUTKIN****Harvey
                Houtkin****Chief
                Executive Officer****March
                5, 2008**
February 20, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DONNA LYNN MORALE, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00965-CV V.

ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on October 14, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Donna Lynn Morale.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA** Supreme Court Cause No. DA - 21 - 0557 ESTATE OF JAMES W. GROMILLER Acting through Executrix Nancy Newhams,

Plaintiff/Appell ee , vs. ANDREW B. GROMILLER,

Defendant/Appell ant . **ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL** 

Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed with prejudice. DATED this _____ day of _______, _______ .

____________________ Supreme Court Justice

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 12 2022

01/12/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0557
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Eon. R. S. Wyche, Page Z 

It is a well l ttled rule of lew thtt the 

omnty in not llablo for injurlea rustaired by teaeon 

0s th0 tO~tiOU8 Or negltfjent 0OtO Of itU Bgents Or eJ& 

plopes In tha mbsonoa of +ealSlo st.otuts oreating 

8uah lfablllt~. Thla propo0ltion 1s borne out In tha 

followIug mthorltiul~ 

HU88BAUM T. BEU COtWl'Y, 76 S. 1. 130 

AWUIXA COUWTY 1. BOND, 17 S. W. (2d 1 358; 

FLQBU v. CALVUTOON CCWil'T, !N 8. w. MO; 

BRYAU t. LIBSRTT t'XXB?R, 899 6. W. SCU. 

We bars 00retrrl.l~ rerlewed the stntutss 8nd 

toiled to ilad any rpoelfie 8tatutom llsblllt~ cmctod 

agelust tlm oocntr by tb fea t l Ituatlon pnaentad by 

If Is fw.lderental that the acunty roul(L han llo 

%lkIty to lnwre rgajnmt a aon-exlete~t llablllt~. 

Art1014 a, &ation U8 of our oonstltutIoJl, doriles the right OS a ootintf to land Ita ondit or grant 

publio money in eid OS any indiriduel. We thiuk thI8 

sootion Is aa oxprom prohibltl~ yala+t the Cmds0Ionor8* Court aontreatlng ior llebillty lnmuanae 

eororlng Injarlea reaalting frantln l Ot8 of lt8 eaplayeaa, 

ff 18 the oplnlon OS Oh16 de_nertant that the 

CadssIoa~rs~ Court of hour oounty ha8 no authority to 

purchase tha policy of Iamxunce tide the batis of y-oar 

lnqulrl, nor to pay r0r the mno out ot oounty rnnd8. 

W:ob 

!r 

APPROVEDm 23, 1940 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TTLf.3
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of Terabeam, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), each of the undersigned Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive
      Officer, and Brian J. Sereda, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of the
      Company certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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)           The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/
                Robert E. Fitzgerald
            
            /s/
                Brian J. SeredaRobert
                E. Fitzgerald
            
            Brian
                J. SeredaChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer and TreasurerDate:  May
                15, 2007
            
            Date:  May
                15, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13055]



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

THE COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The Commission of Fine Arts' next meeting is scheduled for 15 June 
1995 at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices in the Pension Building, 
Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001 to 
discuss various projects affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, 
including buildings, memorials, parks, etc.; also matters of design 
referred by other agencies of the government.
    Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or 
oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, 
Commission of Fine Arts, 411 F Street, NW., Suite 312, Washington, DC 
20001 or call 202-504-2200.

    Dated in Washington, DC 19 May 1995.
Charles H. Atherton,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13055 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of
Fero Industries Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Kyle Schlosser, Chief Executive Officer and Leigh-Ann Squire, Chief Financial Officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.  1350), that to his knowledge:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/
Kyle Schlosser

Kyle
Schlosser, President  and Chief Executive Officer



/s/
Leigh-Ann Squire,

Leigh-Ann Squire, Secretary/Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



October 13, 2010



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Fero Industries Inc. and will be retained by Fero Industries Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12678]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Hart Communication Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 16, 1995, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Hart Communication Foundation 
(``HCF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the identities of the new members are: Apparatebau 
Hundsbach GmbH, Baden-Baden, GERMANY; BESTA AG, Uster, SWITZERLAND; BTG 
Kalle Inventing AB, Saffle, SWEDEN; Elsag Bailey Process Automation, 
Warminster, PA; EMCO Flowmeters, Longmont, CO; Fieldbus International 
AS, Oslo, NORWAY; Helios AG, Therwil, SWITZERLAND; MACTek Corporation, 
Twinsburg, OH; Magnetrol International, Downers Grove, IL; Milltronics 
Ltd., Peterborough, Ontario, CANADA; Schlumberger Measurement North 
America, Greenwood, SC; Valmet Automation Inc., Tampere, FINDLAND; 
VEGA-Grieshaber KG, Schiltach, GERMANY; MTS System Corporation, Cary, 
NC; and MESCO Engineering GmbH, Lorrach, GERMANY. The following are no 
longer members of HCF: Fisher & Porter Company; Oyster Terminal Ltd.; 
and Prime Technology, Inc.
    No other changes have been made in either membership or planned 
acitvity of the group research project. Membership remains open, and 
HCF intends to file additional written notification disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 17, 1994, HCF filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 5, 
1994 (59 FR 23234). The last notification was published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 17, 1994 (59 
FR 59433).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12678 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

           WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
           ----------------------------------------------------------
                         FORM 10-QSB SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
                         ------------------------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT of 1302


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winthrop Residential Associates
III, A Limited Partnership, (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 1302, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



Date:  November 13, 2003                   /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Michael L. Ashner
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 13, 2003                   /s/ Thomas C. Staples
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Thomas C. Staples
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.35


 


CERTAIN MATERIAL (INDICATED BY
THREE ASTERISKS) HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT.  THE OMITTED
MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.


 


AMENDMENT TO SALES
REPRESENTATIVE AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Sales Representative
Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of
March 1, 2002 by and between OrthoLogic Corp., a Delaware corporation,
with its principal place of business at 1275 West Washington Street, Tempe, AZ
85281 (“OrthoLogic”), and DePuy AcroMed, Inc., an Ohio corporation, with its
principal place of business at 325 Paramount Drive, Raynham, MA 02767 (“DePuy
AcroMed”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.                             OrthoLogic and DePuy
AcroMed are parties to a Sales Representative Agreement, dated August 18,
2000, as amended as of August 1, 2001, (the “Agreement”), under which
OrthoLogic appointed DePuy AcroMed as its exclusive sales representative to
sell OrthoLogic’s SpinaLogic bone growth stimulation products, as set forth in
Section 1.8 of the Agreement.


 


B.                             The parties now wish to
add a new Section 12.2.1 to the Agreement.


 


AGREEMENTS


 


In consideration of the following mutual
covenants, the adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                       A new
Section 12.2.1 is hereby added, to read, as follows:


 


“Notwithstanding Section 12.2, effective March 1, 2002,
OrthoLogic shall pay DePuy AcroMed commissions of ***% of the Net Sales Price
for all Product sales made ***. At any time, either party may discontinue the
*** upon 60 days’ prior written notice to the other party. Upon discontinuation
of the ***, the commission rate to be paid by OrthoLogic to DePuy AcroMed will
be governed by Section 12.2 and this Section 12.2.1 shall no longer
have any force or effect.


 


2.                                       Except
as amended hereby, all provisions and terms of the Agreement shall remain in
force and unchanged.


 


 


	
  ORTHOLOGIC
  CORP.

  	
  DEPUY
  ACROMED, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  /s/ Thomas
  Trotter

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
     (signature illegible)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  President /
  CEO

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
     VP SALES

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  3/29/02

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
     3/28/02

  	
   

  
								



 












***Certain information on this
page has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Confidential treatment has
been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10247 Summary Calendar

LONZIE WILSON, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus No First Name STEPHENS, Assistant Warden; R. EASON, Major, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:96-CV-153-X

- - - - - - - - - - April 2, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lonzie Wilson, Jr., # 711254, has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). By moving for IFP, Wilson is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP shouldNo. 97-10247 -2- not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Wilson has alleged that Stephens and Eason were aware that Inmate Jones was mentally disturbed and on medication. He has not specifically alleged that they were aware of facts which would have put them on notice that Jones presented a substantial risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Wilson’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We caution Wilson that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Wilson is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., petitioner, v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

No. 12-786.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
99

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

550 17th St. NW Washington, DC 20429 Deputy to the Chairman & Chief Financial Officer

Appendix I

February 22, 2006

Mr. David M. Walker

Comptroller General of the United States

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548

Re: FDIC Management Response on the 

GAO 2005 Financial Statements Audit Report

Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s

(GAO) draft audit report titled, Financial Audit: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Funds’ 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements, GAO-06-146. The report presents GAO’s

opinions on the calendar years 2005 and 2004 financial statements of the Bank Insurance

Fund (BIF), the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF), and the Federal Savings and

Loan Insurance Corporation Resolution Fund (FRF). The report also presents GAO’s

opinion on the effectiveness of FDIC’s internal controls as of December 31, 2005, and

GAO’s evaluation of FDIC’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

We are pleased to accept GAO’s unqualified opinions on the BIF, SAIF, and FRF financial

statements and to note that there were no material weaknesses identified during the 2005

audits. The GAO reported that the funds’ financial statements were presented fairly, in 

all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles;

FDIC had effective internal control over financial reporting and compliance with laws 

and regulations; and there were no instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations

that were tested.

Regarding the reinstated reportable condition on information systems controls, we

acknowledge but do not share the GAO’s assessment regarding the severity of the risk

impact or the magnitude of the collective vulnerability posed by the potential control issues

identified by the GAO’s audit team. Confidence in the sufficiency of our information 

systems environment and the related information system controls is grounded in what

FDIC believes is a deliberate, comprehensive program designed, in conjunction with 

the deployment of our new financial system, to integrate not only system controls, but 

procedural, managerial, and audit controls into a balanced and cost-effective control framework. Nevertheless, the FDIC will work diligently with our GAO audit partners, throughout

the 2006 audit cycle, to reconcile our respective views on this matter and to augment our

program in those instances where it is determined that changes are appropriate. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely,

Steven O. App

Deputy to the Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Dean BARNETT, petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 12-8972.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.