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

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jose Alberto Espindola Arizmendi,

Petitioner, 

v. 

John F Kelly, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-17-04791-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) from the 

Magistrate Judge recommending that the petition in this case be denied and dismissed 

with prejudice. (Doc. 15). Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. 

 As a result of there being no objections, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to 

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”); 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute 

makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in 

original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted. 

/ / / 

/ / / 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied and dismissed, with 

prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 15th day of August, 2018.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

April 1, 2016

Order 

April 1, 2016

153046(14)

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD,

Defendant.

SC: 153046

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant to file a written response to 

the reply briefs is GRANTED. The response submitted on March 30, 2016, is accepted 

for filing.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles WRIGHT, Appellant. Charles WRIGHT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 65227, 68094.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 26, 1996.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, for burglary in the second degree, § 569.170 RSMol986, and felony stealing, § 570.030 RSMol986. He was sentenced by the court as a class X offender to consecutive sentences of twelve years on each charge. Defendant also appeals denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief. We affirm.

*399We have reviewed the record consisting of the legal file and transcripts for both appeals and find the claims of error are without merit; we find no prejudicial error and the findings and judgment of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### In re Marriage of Robyn A. BRADSHAW, Respondent, and Bruce R. Bradshaw, Appellant.

No. WD 51388.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 11, 1996.

*532Patrick D. Beeman, Kansas City, for appellant.

Thomas E. Hankins, Gladstone, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bruce R. Bradshaw appeals from an order of the trial court dissolving his marriage to Robyn A. Bradshaw and distributing the marital assets and liabilities between them.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13865]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary
[Dockets OST-96-1102 and OST-96-1103]


Applications of Sky Trek International Airlines, Inc. for 
Issuance of New Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of order to show Cause (Order 96-5-41).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders (1) finding Sky 
Trek International Airlines, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and (2) 
awarding it certificates to engage in interstate and foreign charter 
air transportation of persons, property, and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
June 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets OST-96-1102 and OST-96-1103 and addressed to the Documentary 
Services Division (C-55, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 and 
should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janet A. Davis, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: May 29, 1996.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-13865 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24737-24738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12354]



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

[[Page 24738]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OR47-11-7052b; FRL-5504-9]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for the establishment 
of transportation conformity rules to ensure that Federal actions 
conform to the appropriate SIP. The SIP revision was submitted by the 
State to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements. In the 
Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the 
State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal 
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment 
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments 
are received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse 
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public 
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on 
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period 
on this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
June 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality, 
at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents 
relevant to this proposed rule are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at the following locations. The interested 
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment 
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. 
The addresses are: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; State of Oregon, Department of 
Environmental Quality, 811 S.W. 6th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Elson, EPA, Region 10, Office of 
Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-
1463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: May 2, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-12354 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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 on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December
      31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by LaserLock
      Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Normal
      A. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





1.
 
      The Report fully complied 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 operation of the
      Company.





April
                14, 2008
            /s/
                Norman GardnerNorman
                A. Gardner
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Chief
                Financial Officer




This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
      and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Explanatory
      Note: The same individual serves as chief executive (principal) officer and
      principal financial officer. Accordingly, there are no other individuals who
      are
“other certifying officers” referred to in this certification.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

p0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

141872 & (18)(19) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141872 

 COA: 298925 

Oakland CC: 2009-224531-FH 

FRANK PURIFY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2010 

order 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. The motions 

for appointment of counsel and to remand to the trial court are DENIED.
*Of the Northern District of California, sitting by

designation.

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-1420

JOHN C. McCARTHY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF MILFORD, FREDERICK G. DOUGLAS,

and JAMES F. MULLA,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Lynch, Circuit Judge,

and Schwarzer,* Senior District Judge.

Thomas B. Merritt on brief for appellant.

Donald E. Gardner, Pamela N. Morales and Devine, Millimet &

Branch, P.A. on brief for appellees.

September 29, 2004
-2-

Per Curiam. John C. McCarthy appeals from summary

judgment against him on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) claims against

the town of Milford, N.H., and various members of its police force.

After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we

affirm.

Substantially for the reasons given by the district

court, we conclude that there was probable cause to arrest McCarthy

for making false statements to law enforcement officers; given the

state of police knowledge, the officers involved were under no

obligation to conduct further investigation, see Forest v.

Pawtucket Police Dep't, 377 F.3d 52, 57 (1st Cir. 2004). The

arrest being supported by probable cause, we need not consider

whether there was probable cause to arrest McCarthy for the alleged

disorderly conduct violation on which the statute of limitations

had already run.

As McCarthy's federal claims depend upon his assertion

that he was arrested without probable cause, we affirm the district

court's grant of summary judgment against him on those claims and

its dismissal of his supplemental state-law claims.

Affirmed.
Exhibit31.1

Certification of Chief
Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002




I, Gary E. Ban, certify that:

1.            
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended
December 31, 2004, of  Summus, Inc. (“Summus”);

2.            
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of Summus as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report.

4.            
Summus’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Summus and have:

a.               
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to Summus, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.               
Evaluated the effectiveness of Summus’ disclosure control’s and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and

c.               
Disclosed in this report any change in Summus’ internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during Summus’ most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Summus’
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            
Summus’ other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Summus’ auditors and
the audit committee of Summus’ board of directors:

a.               
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect Summus’ ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

b.               
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in Summus’ internal control over financial
reporting.



Date:    March 31,
2005

_______/s/ Gary E.
BanGary E. BanChief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Timothy M. Marquez, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of Venoco, Inc. (“Registrant”);

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| /s/ TIMOTHY  M. MARQUEZ                |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy M. Marquez                     |
| *Chief Executive Officer and Chairman* |
| August 15, 2005                   |

 

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bobby L. JONES, Appellant.

No. WD 51693.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted April 10, 1996.

Decided June 11, 1996.

Jeannie Arterburn, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Bobby Jones was convicted of sodomy in violation of § 566.060.3, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Jones contends on appeal that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal in that, he argues, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Having carefully considered his arguments, we find his appeal to be without merit. A memorandum is furnished to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Humberto Soto-Armenta, 

Defendant.

No. CR-17-1476-PHX-GMS

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on December 27, 2017. The Court was informed 

that the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 28th day of December, 2017.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13347]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-1357-000]


Entergy Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing

May 22, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 6, 1996, Entergy Power, Inc. tendered for 
filing a Certificate of Concurrence in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before June 3, 1996. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13347 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M