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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

ADIL SHAFI, an individual, 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual, 

 Counterclaim Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

Case No. 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

LETTERS ROGATORY

 The People of the United States of America, to the Appropriate Judicial Authority 

in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 

GREETINGS: 

WHEREAS, a certain action is pending in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan, in which BRAINTECH is Plaintiff1

 and Adil Shafi, a resident 

 

1

 Braintech Inc., was dismissed from the case by order dated June 3, 2010, but remains a party to the 

case on the counterclaim of Defendant Shafi. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 52 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 3
2

of the State of Michigan, is a Defendant, and Frederick Weidinger is an additional party 

counterclaim defendant and a resident of the State of Virginia. 

 WHEREAS, it having been made known to us that the testimony of the following 

witness of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, to-wit: Babak Habibi, 1680 Orkney 

Pl, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V7h 2Z1, is necessary for use at the 

trial of the issues in said action and without the testimony of whom justice cannot be 

completely done between the parties; 

WE, THEREFORE REQUEST that in furtherance of justice, you will cause said 

witnesses, to appear before the person authorized to administer oaths at the offices of 

Ellis Business Lawyers, #440-319 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1T3, or some 

other place as agreed by the parties, at a precise time and place by you to be fixed, and 

there to answer, under oaths or affirmations, the questions, document requests and 

interrogatories to be propounded by counsel for the respective parties and said 

questions and answers to be committed and reduced to writing, and thereafter duly 

signed by said witnesses under oath or affirmation, and thereafter return said deposition 

to us under cover, duly closed and sealed, postage prepaid, together with these 

presents, addressed to David J. Weaver, Clerk of the Court, United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette 

Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America 48226, with copies to counsel 

for the parties. 

And we shall be ready and willing to do the same for you in a similar case when 

required. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 52 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 3
3

WITNESS the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Court Judge 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, United States of America, on this _13th__ day of 

October, 2010. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts___________ 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 52 Filed 10/13/10 Page 3 of 3
No. 84043


# FILED JAN 1 0 2022 ELIZABER1 A. BROWN CLERK QF SUPREME COURT BY .ql

PUTYCir i

r RK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ALI SHAHROKHI, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; THE HONORABLE DAWN THRONE, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE BELL, CHIEF JUDGE, Respondents, and KIZZY BURROW, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges, for the second time, see Docket No. 83558, a September 29, 2021, district court order denying petitioner's motion to disqualify Judge Dawn Throne.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation,' we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
1 We have reviewed the documents attached to petitioner's emergency motion for stay, but no appendix was filed with the writ petition. Petitioner's failure to comply with NRAP 21(a)(4) constitutes an additional basis on which to deny relief.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

4(11 I947A (4541P=4 ,2407,0ogo.5Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ

relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

1 

# / 4 .1e.6,, ) J. Silver 0,

Cadish J.

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge Hon. Dawn Throne, District Judge, Family Court Division Ali Shahrokhi Kizzy Burrow Eighth District Court Clerk

2 In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.

2
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50572

Summary Calendar

ROLAND CHAMPION,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CV-318

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Roland Champion of aggravated sexual assault as well as

indecency with a child, and he was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison for

these offenses. Initially, Champion did not appeal his criminal judgment, but

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later granted him authorization to proceed

with an out-of-time appeal. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50572

2

The instant appeal arises from the district court’s denial of Champion’s

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. This denial was grounded

in the district court’s determination that Champion’s out-of-time direct appeal

did not toll the period for filing his § 2254 petition or otherwise affect the

limitations period found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Champion argues that this

decision was incorrect and that the time for filing his § 2254 petition began to

run after the conclusion of proceedings related to his out-of-time direct appeal.

This court conducts a de novo review of the district court’s determination

that Champion’s § 2254 petition was untimely. See Emerson v. Johnson, 243

F.3d 931, 932 (5th Cir. 2001). Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct. 681 (2009),

which was decided after the district court denied Champion’s § 2254 petition, is

dispositive. Jimenez instructs that, in cases such as this, the one-year

limitations period in § 2244(d)(1)(A) begins to run when the out-of-time appeal

becomes final. 129 S. Ct. at 686-87. As a result, the district court’s contrary

determination was erroneous. See id. Consequently, the judgment of the district

court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings

consistent with Jimenez. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of

Champion’s § 2254 petition.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Darryl B. Kaplan,

Plaintiff,

v. Honorable Sean F. Cox

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-10047

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

STRIKING DOCKET ENTRY NO. 67

In an Opinion & Order issued on December 17, 2009, this Court made several rulings

including: 1) denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint asserting

additional claims; 2) ruling that Plaintiff’s FCRA against Trans Union is limited to whether it

failed to respond to his request for investigation within 30 days; and 3) striking Plaintiff’s thenpending motions seeking summary judgment on newly asserted claims (Docket Entry No. 32 &

No. 37). The Opinion & Order further provided that “If Plaintiff desires to file motions for

summary judgment on the sole claim he has asserted against Defendants,” Plaintiff may file such

motions by January 8, 2010.

On January 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, wherein he sought

reconsideration of this Court’s ruling that Plaintiff’s FCRA against Trans Union is limited to

whether it failed to respond to his request for investigation within 30 days. Although this Court

had not granted that Motion for Reconsideration or revised its December 17, 2009 Opinion &

Order, on January 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second motion seeking summary judgment as to

2:09-cv-10047-SFC-VMM Doc # 73 Filed 01/26/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1989
2

Trans Union, wherein Plaintiff again sought summary judgment on additional claims against

Trans Union (Docket Entry No. 67).

In an Opinion & Order issued this date, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration, confirming its prior ruling that Plaintiff’s FCRA against Trans Union is limited

to whether it failed to respond to his request for investigation within 30 days. Given the Court’s

rulings, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 67)

is hereby STRICKEN. If Plaintiff elects to do so, within 10 days of the date of this Order,

Plaintiff may file a Motion for Summary Judgment that addresses the limited claim against Trans

Union.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Docket Entry No. 70 is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: January 26, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

January 26, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10047-SFC-VMM Doc # 73 Filed 01/26/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1990
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          50,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,423)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,025
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,420
<PP&E>                                           1,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (747)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,904
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           664
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,462
<SALES>                                         48,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,043
<CGS>                                           27,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,701)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)


</TABLE>
#### Alan J. VARRIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 65327.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 30, 1994.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Aan J. Varrin, appeals from the motion court’s order denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcripts and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer   I, Dr. S. Craig Barton, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BBN Global Consulting, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;   1   5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: June 18, 2007  /s/  Dr. S. Craig Barton Dr. S. Craig Barton Title: President  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 the quarterly report of Derycz Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Derycz,
        Chief Executive 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.


/s/ Peter
        Derycz
 
 Peter
        Derycz  Chief
        Executive Officer  Date:
        May
        15, 2008
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et. al.,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

The Court having reviewed the Government’s Motion to Appear Telephonically, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Government’s Motion to Appear Telephonically.

Dated this _____ day of October, 2018.

____________________________

Honorable Judge Logan

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 329-1 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

             [Arnold, Spain, Truett & Hewitt, P.L.L.C. Letterhead]



Board of Directors
Community National Corporation
Lexington, TN  38351

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the 
use of our report dated February 16, 1999, on the consolidated financial 
statements of Community National Corporation, and the Annual Report to the 
stockholders, and the annual filing with the SEC (Form 10-KSB) of Community 
National Corporation.

                               /s/ Arnold, Spain, Truett & Hewitt, P.L.L.C.
                                     
                               Certified Public Accountants

March 17, 1999
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland
W. Day II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do 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 the best of 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.




By:
                            /s/Rowland
      W. Day II.Rowland
      W. Day IIChief
      Financial Officer




Dated:
November 22, 2010





This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 32





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 Minatura Gold (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Dias, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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.











/S/ Paul DiasPaul DiasChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Accounting OfficerNovember 18, 2009
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 43 Att. 19

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 10.8(l) 


ANNUALIZED SALARY RATES IN EFFECT AT JANUARY 1, 2009

OF CHARLES T. TUGGLE, JR. AND FRANK J. GUSMUS JR. 






The following
annualized salary rates were in effect at January 1, 2009 for the following
executive officers: Charles T. Tuggle, Jr., $475,000; and Frank J. Gusmus Jr.,
$600,000.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DALE M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 77 WM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of March , 2022, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Summons in a Civil Case

Micah Fialka−Feldman,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:08−cv−14922−PJD−VMM

Hon. Patrick J Duggan

Oakland University Board of

Trustees,

Defendant(s).

Notice to Defendant Oakland University Board of Trustees

This summons is notification that you are being sued by the above named plaintiff(s). You are

required to:

1. Serve upon the plaintiff's attorney:

Chris E. Davis

29200 Vassar Boulevard

Suite 200

Livonia, MI

48152−2116

an answer to the complaint within twenty (20) days after receiving this summons, or

take other actions that are permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. File with the court any answer that you serve on the parties to this action within the time

limits specified.

Failure to answer or take other actions permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may

result in the issuance of a judgment by default against you for the relief demanded in the

complaint.

David J. Weaver, Clerk of Court By: s/ S. Schoenherr 

Deputy Clerk

Date of Issuance: November 25, 2008
Summons and Complaint Return of Service

Case No. 2:08−cv−14922−PJD−VMM

Hon. Patrick J Duggan

A copy of the Summons and Complaint has been served upon the Defendant in the manner

indicated below:

Name of Defendant Served: Oakland University Board of Trustees

Date of Service:

Method of Service

Personally served at this address:

Left copies at defendant's usual place of abode with (name of person):

Other (specify):

Returned unexecuted (reason):

Service Fees: Travel $ Service $ Total $ 

Declaration of Server

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Return of Service is

true and correct.

Name of Server:

Signature of Server:

Date:

Server's Address: