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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136250 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136250 

 COA: 280571 

Macomb CC: 2002-000375-FH 

LISA MARIE HAVENS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-14-00438-CV

_________________

IN RE K.W.M.

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a prior appeal of a modification order in a suit affecting the parent-child 

relationship, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part and reversed in part and 

we remanded the case to the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. See 

In re A.K.M., No. 09-12-00464-CV, 2014 WL 809007, at *17 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Feb. 27, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In a petition for writ of 

mandamus and prohibition, K.W.M. asks this Court to clarify the issues the

visiting judge assigned to hear the case may decide upon remand, and further asks 

this Court to prohibit the trial court from exceeding the scope of the remand. After 
2

reviewing the petition and appendix, the Court denies the petition. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.8(a). 

PETITION DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 8, 2014

Opinion Delivered October 9, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit No.
32.1


Alliance
Health, Inc.


File No.
0-21071


Form
10-K


Year
ended September 30, 2009





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Alliance Health, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sarkis J.
Kechejian, M. D., Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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


(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.






Date:
      December 10, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Sarkis J. Kechejian, M. D.Sarkis
      J. Kechejian, M. D.Chief
      Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Alliance Health, Inc. and will be retained by Alliance Health, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
6:14-cv-00812-MC 

Page 1 

Unopposed Motion to Correct DOE Defendants Represented 

David H. Madden 

Mersenne Law LLP

9600 S.W. Oak Street 

Suite 500 

Tigard, Oregon 97223 

(503)679-1671 

dhm@mersenne.com 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

VOLTAGE PICTURES LLC, a California 

limited-liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

DOEs 1–50, 

Defendants 

Civil Action No.: ............ 6:14-cv-00812-MC

 .......................... related 6:14-cv-00816-MC

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CORRECT 

DOE DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED 

ON 16 May 2014, the undersigned filed Notices of Removal of two Oregon state 

actions to this Court. The notices stated that “certain anonymous John Doe defendants” 

had filed appropriate papers to effect such removal. Shortly thereafter, on 21 May 2014, 

District Judge McShane issued sua sponte orders in the removed cases, quashing 

subpoenas, dismissing DOEs 2–50 and requiring Plaintiff to amend its allegations. 

Court personnel contacted the undersigned to determine which DOE defendants 

were represented by undersigned’s offices, but specific identifications could not be 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 12 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#: 215
6:14-cv-00812-MC 

Page 2 

Unopposed Motion to Correct DOE Defendants Represented 

made without prejudice to these individuals. The Court’s records were then updated to 

show that this office represents all of DOEs 1–50. 

Counsel hereby notifies the Court that he does not represent all of DOEs 1–50, and 

further that he does not represent DOE #1. If the Court desires, DOEs represented by 

this office will be identified under seal by filing the DOE defendants’ names, addresses, 

and copies of the Internet Service Provider letters by which the individuals became 

aware of these proceedings. However, for reasons previously described, and as will be 

argued in further detail in planned oppositions to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. 

#9)1

, the DOEs identities should not be made public at the present stage of these 

proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted, 

29 May 2014 

Date David H. Madden, SBN OR080396 

Attorney for DOEs A–G (not DOE #1)

Mersenne Law LLP

9600 S.W. Oak Street 

Suite 500 

Tigard, Oregon 97223 

dhm@mersenne.com 

(503)679-1671

 

1

 Although MADDEN’s clients were dismissed by the Court’s May 21st Order, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand 

also has the practical effect of a motion to reconsider the dismissal. If, as Plaintiff argues in its Motion to 

Remand, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, then a grant of remand would call into 

question the propriety of the May 21st dismissal of DOEs beyond DOE #1. Thus, the “dismissed” DOEs 

would once again be placed in jeopardy in the state court action, and would have been deprived of their 

opportunity to argue here in favor of Federal jurisdiction of the action and preemption of Plaintiff’s 

claims by the Copyright Act. 

Case 6:14-cv-00812-MC Document 12 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#: 216
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 Agriculture

      ( print page 43624)    
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a six-month emergency approval of the following information collection: ICR 0596-NEW, Grant or Agreement Award Face Sheet. The requested approval would enable the collection of this information and the implementation of this program while USDA completes the normal PRA approval process for ICR 0596-0217.

## Forest Service

*Title:*                     Grant or Agreement Award Face Sheet.                

*OMB Control Number:*                     0596-NEW.                

*Summary of Collection:*                     The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the ability for tribes to enter into agreements with the Forest Service to manage programs implementing the Tribal Forest Protection Act (“638 agreements,” pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). The proposed information collection approves the use of a new form needed to execute these agreements. In conjunction with the Intertribal Timber Council, the Forest Service assessed the status of development of demonstration project agreements under this important new authority and anticipates the need to evaluate and execute numerous projects in the near future. It is critical that the agency be able to support these important economic development projects in a timely fashion.                

If approved for emergency use, this form will be combined with 0596-0217 at the time of renewal (expiration date is 12/31/2021).

Levi S. Harrell,

Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021-16988 Filed 8-9-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:98

Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:99

Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:100

Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:101

Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:102

Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:103

Case: 1:03-cv-09416 Document #: 16 Filed: 03/18/04 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:104
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL J. CUTINO,

Appellant,

v.

NIGHTLIFE MEDIA, INC.,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1541

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Opposition 

No. 91186025.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Michael J. Cutino moves to file a supplemental brief 

and exhibits. Nightlife Media, Inc. moves to strike Mr. 

Cutino’s supplemental brief and exhibits. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

Case: 13-1541 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 05/15/2014
2 CUTINO v. NIGHTLIFE MEDIA, INC. 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motions are deferred to the merits panel assigned 

to hear this case. Copies of this order and the motions 

papers shall be transmitted to the panel.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 13-1541 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 05/15/2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6991

ANGELO HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DENNIS PATTERSON; ANTHONY J. PADULA; JAMES C. DEAN; SHARON 

PATTERSON; OFFICER S. WILSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (6:11-cv-00853-JMC)

Submitted: July 18, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Ham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On appeal, 

Ham argues that the district court erred in concluding that he 

did not file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. A review of the record reveals that Ham did 

file objections. However, although the district court made an 

erroneous finding of fact, such error does not require reversal 

here. United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005)

(this court is “not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered 

by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on 

any grounds apparent from the record”).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation correctly concluded 

that Ham failed to state a constitutional violation in his 

complaint because he did not articulate the denial of a liberty 

interest. The most specific description of the injury Ham 

suffered is that “multiple of his privileges and rights were 

taken for extended periods of time, consecutive.” (E.R. 6). 

Ham does not specify what privileges were taken away as a result 

of the disciplinary hearing. This vague reference to “loss of 

privileges” is insufficient to implicate a liberty interest and, 

thus, Ham does not sufficiently allege the denial of any 

constitutional right. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of 
3

Ham’s complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 99.2



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



In connection with the Annual Report of Yocream International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W.
Douglas Caudell Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (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/ W. Douglas Caudell                              Dated:  January 29, 2003
W. Douglas Caudell
Chief Financial Officer
Yocream International, Inc.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the annual report of HearUSA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gino Chouinard, Chief
Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sections 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/ Gino Chouinard
Gino Chouinard
Chief Financial Officer
HearUSA, Inc.
March 28, 2003
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles J. Fisher, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Martoche, JJ.
Sherwood J. Reese 

Sherwood.reese@comcast.net 

Drew L. Johnson, P.C. 

sherwoodreese@comcast.net 

1700 Valley River Drive 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 434-6466 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT 

ROBERT W. CURRY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Civil No. 6:14-cv-00881-BR 

ORDER APPROVING 

ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 

42 u.s.c. §406(b) 

After considering Plaintiffs Motion, and counsel for Defendant having no objection, 

Plaintiff's Motion is hereby granted in the sum of $19,910.25 as full settlement of all claims 

for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b). Defendant shall pay this amount to 

Plaintiff's counsel, less an administrative assessment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(d). There 

are no other costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April _l_l_, 2017 

U.S~~ ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C §406 (b) - 1 
PRESENTED BY: 

By: Isl SHERWOOD J. REESE 

Sherwood J. Reese, OSB #144130 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C §406 (b)- 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Versata, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan Baratz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 results of operations of the Company as
of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: September 14,
2004



By:

/s/ ALAN BARATZAlan Baratz President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1753-13

DUSTIN ZACHARY COLE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of credit card abuse and sentenced to 5 years in prison. On

appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the $374 in court costs

assessed against him in the judgment. The Court of Appeals agreed, relying on its own

opinion in Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App. – Houston [14 Dist.] 2012). Cole

th
COLE - 2

v. State, No. 14-12-01099-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14017 (Tex. App. – Houston [14

th

Dist.] November 14, 2013) (not designated for publication).

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently

handed down our opinion in Johnson v. State, No. PD-0193-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App.

LEXIS 240 (Tex. Crim. App. February 26, 2014), in which we set forth a roadmap for

resolving questionsregarding court costs. See also Cardenas v. State, No. PD-0733-13, 2014

Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236 (Tex. Crim. App. February 26, 2014).

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in

Johnson. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the

judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of

our opinion in Johnson. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

DATE DELIVERED: April 16, 2014

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### BOOTH, Appellant, v. JENKINS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 20, 1896.)

Action by Charles A. Booth against William H. Jenkins.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11496]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Underground Modernist: E. 
McKnight Kauffer'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Underground Modernist: E. 
McKnight Kauffer'' at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum, New 
York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 
temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e89b8d8b9c818786dadcddd1a89b9c899c8dc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c7f696f786563623e3839354c7f786d7869226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-17249 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>