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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

PATRICIA S. CERRITO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-14628

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON and

JAMES GILCREST,

Defendants.

/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND

Pending before the court is a motion to extend, filed by Defendants Charter

Township of Clinton and James Gilcrest on August 4, 2009, and stipulated to by Plaintiff

Patricia S. Cerrito. On August 11, 2009, the court conducted a telephone conference

with counsel on the instant motion. 

During the conference, counsel informed the court that the periodic

hospitalization of at least one party during the past three months has required the

rescheduling of party depositions. Plaintiff’s deposition is now scheduled for August 13,

2009, and Defendant Gilcrest’s deposition is scheduled for August 28, 2009. Because

the parties have already received one extension of the court’s scheduling order and

have now had nearly seven months of discovery, the court will grant Defendants’ motion

to extend only in part, extending the discovery deadline until August 28, 2009 and the

dispositive motion cutoff to September 4, 2009. Accordingly, 

2:08-cv-14628-RHC-VMM Doc # 15 Filed 08/11/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 82
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-14628.CERRITO.Grant.Part.Motion.to.Extend.ljd.wpd 2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to extend [Dkt. # 12] is GRANTED IN

PART. It is granted to the extent that the court will extend the discovery deadline to

August 28, 2009, and the dispositive motion cutoff to September 4, 2009.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 11, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 11, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-14628-RHC-VMM Doc # 15 Filed 08/11/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 83
EX-10.19.1





Exhibit 10.19.1


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

ATLAS AIR, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN


          Amendment No. 1 as of December 31, 2008, to the Atlas Air, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan as
approved by the Compensation Committee on February 15, 2008 (the “Plan”).


          Article 5.2
of the Plan shall be amended and restated in its entirety to comply with Section
409A of the Internal Revenue Code, effective as of December 31, 2008, as follows:


          5.2
Timing of Payment. To the extent there are profits to be distributed,
Annual Profit Sharing Allocations shall be paid at the discretion of the Committee
but within the 90-day period ended on April 30 following the Plan year for which
the payment is made. The difference, if any, between the amount of the Annual
Profit Sharing Allocations received by Eligible Employees for any fiscal year and
the aggregate of the individual profit sharing amounts actually paid to Eligible
Employees for such Plan year as computed in accordance with this Article 5.2 shall
revert to the Company no later than May 15th following such Plan
year.


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 








 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment No. 1 to the Atlas Air, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan as approved by
the Compensation Committee on February 15, 2008 is executed for and on behalf of the Company,
effective as of December 31, 2008.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ATLAS AIR, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John W. Dietrich
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John W. Dietrich 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Executive Vice President 

 Chief Operating Officer 	 
	 
	 	ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREED TO BY 

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1224
 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joseph V. Muckle
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Joseph V. Muckle  	 
	 	 	Title:  	Secretary-Treasurer 	 
	 



2
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of Siga
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the nine months ended April 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun
Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.








Date:  July
9, 2008








ARUN
KUMAR


Arun
Kumar


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director

















-1-
Amendment No. 3 to the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 
 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 This
Amendment to the International Paper Company Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated February 7, 2005 (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective the 8th day of December 2008. The Plan shall be amended as follows: 
 1. By adding
the following new Section 19 and renumbering accordingly: 
 “19. GRANT OF STOCK OR OTHER STOCK-BASED AWARDS The
Committee is authorized, subject to limitations under applicable law, to grant to participants such other awards that are payable in, valued in whole or in part by reference to, or otherwise based on or related to Shares, as deemed by the Committee
to be consistent with the purposes of the Plan, including without limitation Shares awarded purely as a “bonus” and not subject to any restrictions or conditions, convertible or exchangeable debt securities, other rights convertible or
exchangeable into Shares, and awards valued by reference to book value of Shares or the value of securities of or the performance of specified parents or subsidiaries. The Committee shall determine the terms and conditions of such Awards.”
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Charles R . Johnson, Sr. , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00015

- CV v.

SWEPCO Southwestern Electric Power
Co. , Appellee Appeal from the 202nd District Court of

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

21C0613

- 202 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Stevens

, Justice

van Cleef and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Charles R . Johnson, Sr. , pay all costs incu rred by

reason of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 12, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
SCOTT E. STEVENS
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Madrona Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reese Baglole,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of March, 2009.


/s/ Reese Baglole
--------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 

B 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-3 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-3 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-3 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-3 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-3 Filed 04/09/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-3 Filed 04/09/18 Page 6 of 6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7380

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KINGSLEY CHUKWUEZI,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR97-229-PJM, CA-00-1174-PJM)

Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 16, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kingsley Chukwuezi, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Steven Michael Dettelbach,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

September 20, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on September 21, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Kingsley Chukwuezi seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Chukwuezi, Nos. CR-97-

229-PJM; CA-00-1174-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2000).* We deny Chukwuezi’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6155

ROBERT WAYNE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN WALLACE; UNIT MANAGER HOWARD; LIEUTENANT MARTIN; SERGEANT GLADMAN; OFFICER DAVIS;

OFFICER THAMES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-222-0-8AJ)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Wayne Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Eugene Evans, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Joseph Dawson Shine, Alexandria

Skinner, SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order adopting the

magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6) all of Appellant's claims, except for his claim that his

placement in four-point restraints violated his constitutional

rights. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Appellant's

motions for production of documents and for general relief and

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.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cletis Ray RORIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 62792.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 17, 1993.

S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David B. Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Cletis Ray Rorie, appeals from judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, for stealing property of a value of at least one hundred and fifty dollars and for burglary in the second degree. He was sentenced as a prior, persistent, and class X offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of ten years on each count.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 20 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GHEORGHE CROITORU,

Petitioner, 

v.

MICHAEL MUKASY, et. al.,

Respondents. 

/

Case Number: 2:08-CV-14282

HON. AVERN COHN

ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Petitioner, Gheorge Croitoru, currently confined at Moshannon Valley

Correctional Institution in Philipsburgh, Pennsylvania (Centre County), has filed a pro

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner claims that he

is wrongfully incarcerated for a crime he did not commit, that he is a United States

citizen, and is concerned about his immigration status and fearful of deportation. 

District courts are limited to granting habeas relief “within their respective

jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The Supreme Court has “interpreted this language

to require “nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the

custodian.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973)

Claims asserted by federal prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 shall be filed in the court

having jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,

443 (2004).

2:08-cv-14282-AC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 02/06/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 111
2

Here, Petitioner is incarcerated in Philipsburgh, Pennsylvania in Centre County. 

Thus, Petitioner’s case must be heard in the Court having jurisdiction over Petitioner’s

custodian, which is the United States District Court for the District for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania. 

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 6, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Gheorghe Croitoru

and the attorneys of record on this date, February 6, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:08-cv-14282-AC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 02/06/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 112
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY PARKS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-13944

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ANDRE AGRUDA,

Defendant.

____________________________/

JUDGMENT

On September 12, 2008, Plaintiff Larry Parks (“Plaintiff”) filed this action

claiming that, while incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, Defendant

Andre Agruda (“Defendant”) violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment. On January 16, 2009, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff filed a response on February 25, 2009. In an Opinion and Order issued on this

date, the Court granted Defendant’s motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiff’s complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATE: May 4, 200 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Larry Parks, #116705

Gus Harrison Correctional Facility

2727 E. Beecher Street

Adrian, MI 49221

Scott R. Rothermel, Esq.

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

2:08-cv-13944-PJD-DAS Doc # 24 Filed 05/04/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 244
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT CARICO,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 08-14570

HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO EXPAND THE RECORD

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan on September 1, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Pending before the Court in this habeas action is Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to

Expand the Record. Petitioner seeks to supplement the record with three documents

from a malpractice case that Petitioner initiated against his trial attorney in state court. 

The exhibits include (1) a set of interrogatories that Petitioner sent to his trial attorney, (2)

the attorney’s answer to the interrogatories, and (3) the attorney’s motion for summary

disposition of the malpractice case. Petitioner alleges that the exhibits support his habeas

claim that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. 

Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

2:08-cv-14570-PJD-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 09/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1156
2

Courts permits a district judge to expand the record to include additional materials

relating to the habeas petition. Respondent does not object to the inclusion of Petitioner’s

exhibits in the record, provided the Court also considers certain state court documents

attached to his answer to the habeas petition. The Court will consider both parties’

exhibits when adjudicating the habeas petition.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Expand the Record is

GRANTED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Robert Carico, #214910

Parnell Correctional Facility

1790 E. Parnell

Jackson, MI 49201

Jerrold Schrotenboer, Esq.

2:08-cv-14570-PJD-RSW Doc # 14 Filed 09/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1157
#### George and Adeline POPE, Petitioners, v. Charles William STEPHENSON and Moore Transportation Co. Inc., Respondents.

No. C-9058.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 25, 1990.

Rehearing Overruled May 30, 1990.

Frederick H. Shiver, Dallas, for petitioners.

Scott Patrick Stolley, Dallas, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves a trial court order protecting certain party communications from discovery under the “investigative” privilege of Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d). The court of appeals decided that there was nothing in the record to indicate what facts *954the denied reports encompassed, and thus no basis existed from which to conclude that there was harmful error as required under Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1). 774 S.W.2d 743. We find no error in that decision.

We disapprove, however, of the apparent suggestion in the appellate court’s opinion that mandamus is the “timely” remedy for any wrongful denial of discovery. 774 S.W.2d at 745. The decision not to pursue the extraordinary remedy of mandamus does not prejudice or waive a party’s right to complain on appeal.1 In most cases, the contents of the documents which have been protected must be available in order to determine whether the error has “amounted to such a denial of the rights of the appellant as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judg-ment_” Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1). The burden is on the complaining party to see that, a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal. Tex.R. App.P. 50(d). Therefore, if documents have been submitted for *in camera*inspection, the complaining party must request that the exhibits be carried forward under seal so that the appellate court can evaluate this information. Accordingly, the application for writ of error is denied.

1

. We also disapprove of similar language in *Caudillo v. Chiuminatto,*741 S.W.2d 545, 546 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no writ), which states that mandamus is the "only remedy" available to a party who has been denied discovery of properly discoverable information.
Form of Stock Grant Agreement to Chairman



 EXHIBIT 10.21 
 FORM OF AWARD AGREEMENT TO CHAIRMAN 
 UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE XTO ENERGY INC. 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE
PLAN, 
 AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF MAY 20, 2008 
 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this      day of             , 200  , between XTO Energy Inc., a Delaware
corporation (herein called “Company”), and                              (herein called
“Grantee”), pursuant to the provisions of the XTO Energy Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, as Amended and Restated as of May 20, 2008 (the “Plan”). The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the
“Committee”) has determined that Grantee is eligible to be a participant in the Plan and, to carry out its purposes, has this day authorized the grant, pursuant to the Plan, of the shares set forth below to Grantee. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Grant of Shares. Subject to all of the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Plan and of this Agreement, the Company hereby
grants to Grantee under Section 11 of the Plan              shares of the common stock of the Company, of the par value of one cent ($0.01) per share (“Common Stock”), which
shares shall consist of authorized but unissued shares or issued shares reacquired by the Company. Such shares are being issued under Section 11 of the Plan. 
 2. Vesting. All shares granted herein shall vest immediately. 
 3. Grantee’s Agreement. Grantee expressly and specifically agrees that, with respect to the calendar year in which such shares are granted, Grantee shall include in his gross income for federal income tax purposes the fair
market value of the shares. 
  

 1 








 4. Other Terms, Conditions, and Provisions. As noted above, the shares herein
granted by the Company to Grantee are granted subject to all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the Plan. Grantee hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Plan and Plan prospectus and hereby consents to receive any updates to the Plan or
Plan prospectus electronically. The parties agree that the entire text of the Plan is incorporated by reference as if copied herein. Reference is made to the Plan for a full description of the rights of Grantee and all of the other terms, conditions
and provisions of the Plan applicable to the shares granted herein. If any of the provisions of this Agreement vary from or are in conflict with the Plan, the provisions of the Plan will be controlling. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed and entered into effective on the day and year first above expressed. 
  

			
	 XTO ENERGY INC.

		
	 By:
	 	  

	 Name:
	 	
	 Title:
	 	
	
	 GRANTEE

	
	  



  

 2