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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-20469-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

ROGERICK DANDRE WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S “MOTION TO SUPPRESS MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION FOR ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

SUPPRESS BASED UPON NEW SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY” AND

DEFENDANT’S “MOTION TO SUPPRESS”

On September 26, 2008, a single count indictment [Dkt. # 3] was filed against Defendant

Rogerick Dandre Williams for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), felon in possession of a firearm.

Subsequent to a hearing, on March 26, 2009, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress

evidence found during a search of his vehicle. See [Dkt. # 14, 23]. On April 1, 2009, Defendant

entered a guilty plea; his sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2009. Now before the Court

is Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of his motion to suppress [Dkt. # 29], based on Arizona

v. Gant, - - - S. Ct. - - - - , 2009 WL 1045962 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2009). On May 19, Defendant filed a

revised version of his motion [Dkt. # 31], which does not differ in basic substance from the original.

On May 29, 2009, the government filed a response [Dkt. # 32]. The government contends

that Defendant’s guilty plea precludes reconsideration of his motion to suppress because a guilty

plea removes the issue of factual guilt, citing Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62-63 n.2 (1975).

The government suggests that Defendant’s proper recourse is to file a motion to withdraw his plea

1:08-cr-20469-TLL-CEB Doc # 33 Filed 06/05/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 93
-2-

pursuant to Rule 11(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a defendant

to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for

requesting the withdrawal.” The government concedes that the impact of Arizona v. Gant provides

a fair and just reason to allow Defendant to withdraw his plea and indicates that it would not oppose

a properly filed motion by Defendant. The government is correct and the Defendant’s motions to

reconsider his motion to suppress will be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s “motion to suppress motion for

reconsideration for order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress based upon new Supreme Court

Authority” [Dkt # 29] and Defendant’s “motion to suppress” [Dkt. # 31] are DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: June 5, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on June 5, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:08-cr-20469-TLL-CEB Doc # 33 Filed 06/05/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 94
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 1 of 27 Pg ID 3006
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 2 of 27 Pg ID 3007
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 3 of 27 Pg ID 3008
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 4 of 27 Pg ID 3009
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 5 of 27 Pg ID 3010
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 6 of 27 Pg ID 3011
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 7 of 27 Pg ID 3012
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 8 of 27 Pg ID 3013
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 9 of 27 Pg ID 3014
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 10 of 27 Pg ID 3015
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 11 of 27 Pg ID 3016
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 12 of 27 Pg ID 3017
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 13 of 27 Pg ID 3018
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 14 of 27 Pg ID 3019
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 15 of 27 Pg ID 3020
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 16 of 27 Pg ID 3021
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 17 of 27 Pg ID 3022
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 18 of 27 Pg ID 3023
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 19 of 27 Pg ID 3024
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 20 of 27 Pg ID 3025
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 21 of 27 Pg ID 3026
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 22 of 27 Pg ID 3027
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 23 of 27 Pg ID 3028
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 24 of 27 Pg ID 3029
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 25 of 27 Pg ID 3030
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 26 of 27 Pg ID 3031
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 122-3 Filed 11/04/11 Pg 27 of 27 Pg ID 3032
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6643

FORTUNATO J. MENDES, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus JAMES PEGUESE, Warden; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:02-cv-04030-DKC) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fortunato J. Mendes, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Fortunato J. Mendes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mendes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLARANCE HUCUL, and

DIANE ROTHMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT REZNICK, and

AMERITECH PUBLISHING, INC.

Defendants,

/

Case No. 09-10529 

HON: AVERN COHN

ORDER

Given that defendants Jeffrey Weber, Michael Olcese, and the Law Firm of Weber &

Olcese are no longer parties in this case, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint as to

defendants Robert Reznick and Ameritech Publishing, Inc. The motion for summary

judgment (Dkt. 29) in so far as it pertains to Ameritech Publishing, Inc. through its

joinder (Dkt. 31) is DENIED without prejudice. Following the filing of the amended

complaint and answers, the Court will hold a status conference to chart the future

course of the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 02, 2009 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

record on this date, December 2, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-10529-AC-MJH Doc # 36 Filed 12/02/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 791
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  444,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               452,186
<PP&E>                                      11,840,814
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,272,886)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,020,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,725
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,020,114
<SALES>                                      1,721,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,726,429
<CGS>                                        1,272,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,272,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               261,038
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                192,505
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            192,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   192,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

[Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers]
                                                     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

                                                     1177 Avenue of the Americas
                                                     New York NY 10036
                                                     Telephone (646) 471 4000
                                                     Facsimile (646) 471 4100


                        Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder
of CIT Group Inc.


We have examined management's assertion about The CIT Group/Sales Financing,
Inc.'s (the "Company's"), a wholly owned subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.,
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, as included in the
accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I) for Chase Manhattan RV Owner
Trust 1997-A and Chase Manhattan Marine Owner Trust 1997-A. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, NY
March 26, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GARRISON,

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-10231

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

 Magistrate Judge Charles Binder

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, PATRICIA CARUSO, 

MICHAEL MARTIN, and 

JULIUS O. CURLING,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Binder’s report and

recommendation [dkt 35] of July 2, 2009, in which the Magistrate Judge recommends denying

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt 30]. Neither party has filed an objection to the report

and recommendation. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file and the report and

recommendation. As a result of that review, the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation and

enters it as the findings and conclusions of this Court as it pertains to the denial of Plaintiff’s motion.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 29, 2009

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 39 Filed 07/29/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 220
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on July 29, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 39 Filed 07/29/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 221
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33925-33926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16620]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: State Plan for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance--Title 
IV-E.
    OMB No.: 0980-0141.
    Description: A State Plan for foster care and adoption assistance 
is required by section 471 of the Social Security Act from any State 
wishing to claim Federal Financial Participation for foster care and 
adoption assistance. States may use a preprinted format or may develop 
their own format which meets the requirements of the law. The Plan is

[[Page 33926]]

submitted only once and amended as necessary. Our experience is that a 
State will amend a Plan once every 4 years; approximately 12 per year.
    Respondents: State governments.

                                             Annual Burden Estimates                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Number of     Average               
                                                               Number of    responses      burden       Total   
                         Instrument                           respondents      per       hours per      burden  
                                                                            respondent    response      hours   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case plan...................................................           51            1           15          180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 180.
    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be 
obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, 
Office of Information Services, Division of Information Resource 
Management Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer.
    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of 
this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of 
publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office 
of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Ms. Wendy Taylor.

    Dated: June 12, 1996.
Larry Guerrero,
Director, Office of Information Services.
[FR Doc. 96-16620 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 33-41465) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1996 Equity 
Savings Plan of AutoCyte, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 
333-41467) pertaining to the 1997 Director Stock Option Plan of our report 
dated February 5, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements 
of AutoCyte, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended 
December 31, 1998.



                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 23, 1999
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-32737) of Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National
Association and JPMorgan Chase Bank of our report dated March 29, 2002 relating
to the assertion made by management of The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc. (the
Company) surrounding the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards identified in the Mortgage Banker's Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2001, which report appears as Exhibit 93.2 of this Form 10-K.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, NY
March 29, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15066]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. 24802; Amendment No. 29-39]
RIN 2120-AB36


Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Rotorcraft 
Performance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule 
published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1996 (61 FR 21894). The 
final rule adopted new and revised airworthiness standards for the 
performance of transport category rotorcraft.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.E. Archer, (817) 222-5126.

Correction of Publication

    In rule document 96-11494, on page 21894, in the issue of Friday, 
May 10, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 21894, in the first column, in the heading, Amendment ``No. 
20-40]'' should read ``No. 29-39]''.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 7, 1996.
Joseph A. Conte,
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-15066 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16477]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. C-3619]


Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation; Prohibited Trade Practices, 
and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this 
consent order permits, among other things, Columbia/HCA and 
Healthtrust, Inc. to merge, provided that Columbia/HCA divests seven 
hospitals within twelve months (nine months for the divestiture of 
three hospitals in the Salt Lake City area), and requires the 
respondent to terminate its participation in a joint venture with the 
Orlando Regional Health System. In a modification of the consent 
agreement, this consent order replaces a prior-approval requirement 
with a prior-notice provision that requires the respondent, for ten 
years, to notify the Commission before acquiring another acute care 
hospital in any of the six market areas at issue, and before 
transferring an acute care hospital in any of the areas to another 
entity that already operates one in that area.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued October 3, 1995.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Oscar Voss, FTC/S-3115, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Tuesday, May 23, 1995, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 60 FR 27292, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Columbia/HCA Healthcare 
Corporation, for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested 
parties were given sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, 
suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form of the order.
    Comments were filed and considered by the Commission. The 
Commission has ordered the insurance of the complaint, made its 
jurisdictional findings are entered an order to divest in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec, 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16477 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M