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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133832 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: 133832 

 COA: 266089 

Wayne CC: 05-004785-01

ASHLEY JORDAN PARKER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
**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 the Quarterly Report of Global MobileTech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Aik Fun Chong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.

|  

 

Dated:  June 27, 2011

By: /s/ Aik Fun Chong

 

       Aik Fun Chong

 

       President and Chief   

       Executive Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:01cr82LAC

 

DANIEL JUAREZ

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on October 3, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 9/19/05 Doc.# 163

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ / Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 4th day of

October, 2005, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Lack of receipt of the Report and Recommendation does not alter the fact that

the case was closed by judgment on 2 May 2005. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:01-cr-00082-LC-MD Document 164 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
- Button15: 
    - Text17: 
    - Text18: 
    - Text19: 
    - Text20: 
    - Text21: 
    - Text22: 
    - Text23: 
    - Text24: 
    - Text25: 
    - Text26: 
    - Text27: 
    - Text28: 
    - Text29: 
    - Text30: 
    - Text31:
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 3 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID O. BENNETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 98-3271

v. D. Kansas

WILLIAM J. HENDERSON,

Postmaster General, United States

Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

(D.C. No. CV-97-2151-JWL)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

David O. Bennett appeals an adverse summary judgment entered by the

magistrate court in Mr. Bennett’s Rehabilitation Act claim against William J.

Henderson, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service. Although

Mr. Bennett’s pro se brief on appeal is virtually incomprehensible, our review of

the entire file reveals that the essence of his complaint is that the defendant

violated the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq. , when he failed to

reassign Bennett to another job, or to otherwise reasonably accommodate him,

after it became apparent that Bennett could no longer perform the job which he

had been assigned. He also claims that the defendant unlawfully retaliated

against him for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission.

The magistrate court addressed all of Mr. Bennett’s contentions in a

thorough Memorandum and Order entered August 7, 1998. After careful review

of Mr. Bennett’s contentions under the Act, and applying our usual standards of

review with respect to summary judgments, we conclude that the magistrate court

did not err either with respect to the reasonable accommodation/reassignment

claims, the retaliation claims, or other claims made by Mr. Bennett.
-3-

Accordingly, the judgment of the magistrate court is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Kelly Longtin, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Otter Tail Ag Enterprises, LLC;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

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

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of governors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

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

 

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

 

 

Date:  August 19, 2008

 
|   | /s/ Kelly Longtin       |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Kelly Longtin           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANDY V. JOSEPH,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:10cv377-SPM/WCS

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

SECRETARY, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner Andy V. Joseph’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (doc. 30) and motion for

certificate of appealability (doc. 32). For the following reasons, the motions will

be denied.

1. The standard for appealing in forma pauperis requires that the

appeal be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith in this context

is measured by objectively. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962); see also, Pace v. Evans, 709 F.2d 1428, 1429 (in forma pauperis status

must be denied if the appeal is “without arguable merit”). The Court certifies that

Case 4:10-cv-00377-SPM-WCS Document 33 Filed 05/10/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Petitioner’s appeal is not taken in objective good faith. Petitioner’s state

postconviction relief motion did not toll the one year time period because the

motion was rejected by the state court as untimely. Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3,

7 (2007). Petitioner has not demonstrated due diligence regarding his discovery

of information about the gun. Furthermore, Petitioner does not dispute that his §

2254 petition was filed more than one year after he received the letter from the

FDLE with the documents to support his claim. 

2. Petitioner has not submitted a trust fund account statement as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) to proceed in forma pauperis.

3. A petitioner seeking a certificate of appealability must make a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). This standard is met if the petitioner can show that reasonable jurists

could differ as to the resolution of the case or if the issues have sufficient merit to

deserve encouragement to appeal. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). The resolution of this case is not debatable and the issues do not

deserve encouragement to appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (doc. 30) is

denied. Petitioner shall pay to the clerk of this court, in accordance with Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), the sum of $455.00, which consists of the $450

fee for docketing the case on appeal (see Note following 28 U.S.C. § 1913,

CASE NO.: 4:06cv452-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00377-SPM-WCS Document 33 Filed 05/10/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, ¶ (1)) and an additional $5 fee under 28

U.S.C. § 1917. 

2. The motion for certificate of appealability (doc. 32) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:10cv377-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00377-SPM-WCS Document 33 Filed 05/10/12 Page 3 of 3
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 35 Filed 12/06/10 Page 8 of 8
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

VINCENT KEITH RAINES,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv172-MP-GRJ

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated. (Doc. 43). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination

of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. The Motion to Dismiss (doc. 35) is GRANTED, and this case is dismissed. The

Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00172-MP-GRJ Document 44 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011272EN.01000601.xml

| 15.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2011/C 272/03

Aid No: SA.33435 (11/XA)

Member State: Belgium

Region: Vlaams Gewest

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Facultatieve subsidie aan de vzw Interprofessionele Vereniging voor het Belgisch Vlees

Legal basis: Ministerieel besluit houdende de toekenning van een facultatieve subsidie aan de vzw Interprofessionele Vereniging voor het Belgisch Vlees

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 0,02 million

Maximum aid intensity: 100 %

Date of implementation: —

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 8 September 2011-31 December 2011

Objective of aid: Production of quality agricultural products (Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Animal production

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Departement Landbouw en Visserij |
| --- |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40 |
| 1030 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Departement Landbouw en Visserij

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40

1030 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Website: http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?fid=130

Other information: —

Aid No: SA.33436 (11/XA)

Member State: Belgium

Region: Vlaams Gewest

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Facultatieve subsidie aan de Cel Begeleiding Karkasclassificatie van de Universiteit van Gent

Legal basis: Ministerieel besluit houdende de toekenning van een facultatieve subsidie aan de Cel Begeleiding Karkasclassificatie van de Universiteit van Gent

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 0,04 million

Maximum aid intensity: 100 %

Date of implementation: —

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 8 September 2011-31 December 2011

Objective of aid: Production of quality agricultural products (Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Animal production

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Departement Landbouw en Visserij |
| --- |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40 |
| 1030 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Departement Landbouw en Visserij

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40

1030 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Website: http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?fid=130

Other information: —

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GARY BULLARD and

CYNTHIA W. BULLARD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv434/MCR/CJK

US BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated July 12, 2012 (doc. 163), certifying that the proposed appeal is not

taken in good faith and recommending that the amended motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal (doc. 156) be denied. Attorney Bruce Committee has filed a timely

objection (doc. 166). Having fully considered the Report and Recommendation, the record,

and the objection de novo, the court concludes that the Recommendation is due to be

adopted as modified. Despite a mistake in the value of Mr. Committee’s real estate

holdings and liabilities and regardless of indigency, the motion must be denied on grounds

that the appeal is objectively frivolous and thus not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3).

Accordingly:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 163) is adopted

as the order of the court and incorporated by reference herein as modified in this order.

2. Attorney Bruce Committee’sFirst Amended Motion to File Appeal of Sanction

Motion and Proceed with Appeal Without Paying Court Fees and Costs Associated

Therewith (doc. 156) is DENIED and the court CERTIFIES that the appeal is not taken in

good faith.

3. Additionally, the motion and affidavit do not comport with the requirements 

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 169 Filed 07/17/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

of Rule 24(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00434-MCR-CJK Document 169 Filed 07/17/12 Page 2 of 2
# C_2011049EN.01001301.xml

| 16.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/13

---

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011 under certain quotas opened by the European Union for poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin

2011/C 49/07

Commission Regulations (EC) No 533/2007 (1), (EC) No 536/2007 (2), (EC) No 539/2007 (3), (EC) No 1384/2007 (4) and (EC) No 1385/2007 (5) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011 do not, for quotas 09.4068, 09.4070, 09.4169, 09.4015, 09.4402, 09.4091, 09.4411 and 09.4421, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (6), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 April to 30 June 2011; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

1

2

3

4

5

6

---

(1)  OJ L 125, 15.5.2007, p. 9.

1

(2)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

2

(3)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19.

3

(4)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 40.

4

(5)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

5

(6)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

6

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4068 | 5 733 000 |
| 09.4070 | 882 750 |
| 09.4169 | 12 498 750 |
| 09.4015 | 108 000 000 |
| 09.4402 | 8 584 764 |
| 09.4091 | 140 000 |
| 09.4411 | 1 275 000 |
| 09.4421 | 175 000 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011

(in kg)

09.4068

5 733 000

09.4070

882 750

09.4169

12 498 750

09.4015

108 000 000

09.4402

8 584 764

09.4091

140 000

09.4411

1 275 000

09.4421

175 000

---
# C_2010226EN.01001202.xml

| 21.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5888 — Delek Europe/BP France Retail)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 226/05

On 18 August 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HERBERT CHANCEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:09cv352-SPM/WCS

GADSDEN COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Notice of Resolution (doc. 20) advising that this case

has settled, and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 16.2(D), it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. The Court retains jurisdiction for a period of 60 days, during which

time any party may move to reopen for good cause shown.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge