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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3619 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3619

  To provide off-budget treatment for the land and water conservation 
                                 fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 1996

Mr. Campbell  introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the 
    Budget, and Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide off-budget treatment for the land and water conservation 
                                 fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law except the Line Item 
Veto Act of 1996, the receipts and disbursements of the land and water 
conservation fund--
            (1) shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
        receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
                    (A) the budget of the United States Government as 
                submitted by the President,
                    (B) the congressional budget (including allocations 
                of budget authority and outlays provided therein), or
                    (C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
                Control Act of 1985; and
            (2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation 
        imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
        outlays) of the United States Government.
                                 <all>
```
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 43 Att. 24

Dockets.Justia.com
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,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the United States’ request for a Frye/Cooper Hearing in its 

Trial Brief (Doc. 1642), and finding good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for 

purposes of setting a Frye/Cooper Hearing as soon as practicable at which time the 

United States may make a record in the presence of Defendants as to the United States’

plea offers. 

The Court finds there is no excludable delay.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1676 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 1
K:\DOCS\LIT\BRADY\A37000\ORDER\YB4771.WPD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD FLANAGAN,

Plaintiff,

v 

RUFUS STEWART & AARON SCOTT,

Defendants.

 

Case No. 08-14467 

Judge Patrick J. Duggan 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS CAUSE

The parties in the above-entitled cause by their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate and

agree that an Order be entered forthwith dismissing the said cause with prejudice and without costs

and attorney fees to any party.

s/Ben M. Gonek (with faxed consent)

BEN M. GONEK (P-43716)

Attorney for Plaintiff

101 E. Big Beaver Road, Suite 1000

Troy, MI 48044

(248) 457-7122 

s/Yuvonne R. Bradley

YUVONNE R. BRADLEY (P-54485)

CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT

Attorney for Defendants

660 Woodward Avenue

1650 First National Building

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5051 

ORDER TO DISMISS CAUSE

At a session of the said Court held in the 

Courthouse, City of Detroit, County of Wayne,

 Michigan on March 26, 2010.

Present: Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

U.S. District Court Judge

Upon the reading and filing of the stipulation annexed hereto, and the Court being fully 

advised in the premises;
K:\DOCS\LIT\BRADY\A37000\ORDER\YB4771.WPD

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within cause be dismissed with prejudice and without

costs and without attorney fees to any party; all pending claims are hereby resolved and this case is

now closed.

S/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: March 26, 2010

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

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

S/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NETFLIX, INC.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55905 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05500-JFW-RAO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

David Louis Whitehead appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

dismissing his action under a pre-filing vexatious litigant order. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Moy v. 

United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-55905 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Whitehead’s

proposed filings and dismissing his action because the filings were within the 

scope of the district court’s pre-filing vexatious litigant order. See Weissman v. 

Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the 

inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with 

abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the 

litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain 

requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court . . . .” (internal citation 

removed)).

We reject as without merit Whitehead’s contentions that the district judge 

and magistrate judges should have recused themselves from this action. 

Whitehead’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danny W. LEDBETTER, Appellant.

No. 67578.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 24, 1995.

David H. Ash, Mcllroy and Malian, Bowling Green, for Appellant.

*806Mark S. Fisher, Pros. Atty., Pike County, Bowling Green, for Respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

The two issues contested on defendant Ledbetter’s direct appeal involve consecutive sentences and denial of probation after guilty pleas on misdemeanor charges of driving while intoxicated and driving while revoked. Both are without legal merit. A recommendation of the Probation and Parole Board is, at most, advisory. The use of a pre-sentence investigation is discretionary, not mandatory. State *v. Barnard,*678 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Mo.App.1984). Moreover, granting or denying probation are matters within the absolute discretion of the trial court and are not subject to appellate review. *State v. Williams,*871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994); *State v. Austin,*620 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1981). A decision to impose consecutive one year jail sentences on two charges is within the discretion of the trial court. *See State v. Williamson,*836 S.W.2d 490, 500 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). We find no abuse.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management


Notice of Meeting

SUMMARY: The Lower Snake River District Resource Advisory Council will 
meet in Boise to discuss a U.S. Air Force proposal to withdraw about 
11,000 acres of public land in Owyhee County for an expanded Air Force 
training range.

DATES: July 16, 1996. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and a public 
comment period will begin at 9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The Lower Snake River District Office is located at 3948 
Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Rose, Lower Snake River District 
Office (208-384-3393).

    Dated: June 24, 1996.
Barry Rose,
Public Affairs Specialist.
[FR Doc. 96-16544 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3641 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3641

  To amend the Federal Power Act to provide for the delegation of dam 
                 safety authority to State government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 1996

    Mr. Gallegly (for himself, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Fazio of 
 California, and Mrs. Seastrand) introduced the following bill; which 
         was referred to the Committee on Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Power Act to provide for the delegation of dam 
                 safety authority to State government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DELEGATION OF DAM SAFETY AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL POWER ACT.

    Section 10(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803(c)) is 
amended by adding the following after the first sentence thereof: 
``Upon the request of the licensee, where the installed capacity of the 
generating equipment does not exceed 10MW, the Commission shall permit 
the State wherein the dam is located to regulate the safety of the dam, 
unless the Commission determines that the State does not have an 
adequate dam safety program.''.
                                 <all>
```
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of CTI Industries Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Howard W.
      Schwan, as President of the Company, and Stephen M. Merrick, as Executive
      Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
      certifies, 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/
      Howard W. Schwan





Howard
      W.
      Schwan


President





Date:
      October
      4, 2006





/s/
      Stephen M. Merrick


Stephen
        M. Merrick


Executive
      Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer





Date: October
      4, 2006





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      and
      is not being “filed” as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure
      document for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as
      amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to liability under that
      section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
      Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically
      incorporated by reference in any such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MOZELLA SALEEM,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-14894

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on January 29, 2010 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

On November 4, 2009, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court grant the Defendant

Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for remand, and that this case be remanded for

further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). No

objections have been filed to the R & R. Upon reviewing the R & R, Plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment, Defendant’s motion for remand, and the record as a whole, the

Court fully concurs in the analysis of the Magistrate Judge, and adopts the R & R in its

entirety.

2:08-cv-14894-GER-RSW Doc # 23 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 216
2

Accordingly,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s

November 4, 2009 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the R & R,

Defendant’s June 25, 2009 motion for remand (docket #20) is GRANTED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: January 29, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 29, 2010 , I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the following: Vanessa M. Mays , and I

hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following nonECF participants:

 Mozella Saleem, 14849 Lesure, Detroit, MI 48227 .

s/Ruth A. Brissaud 

Ruth A. Brissaud, Case Manager

(313) 234-5137

2:08-cv-14894-GER-RSW Doc # 23 Filed 01/29/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 217
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES CRAIG CRISTINI,

 

Petitioner, Civil No. 01-CV- 74483-DT

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On February 29, 2012, this Court denied petitioner’s application for writ of

habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, denied petitioner a certificate

of appealability, and granted petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Cristini v.

Woods, No. 2012 WL 666229 (E.D. Mich. February 29, 2012). Petitioner has now

filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) provides that in order for a

court to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show (1) a palpable

defect; (2) that misled the court and the parties; and (3) that correcting the defect will

result in a different disposition of the case. Sigma Financial Corp. v. American Intern.

Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 710, 715 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A ‘palpable

defect’ is a defect which is considered “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or

2:01-cv-74483-DPH Doc # 164 Filed 03/29/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 4796
2

plain.” Id. As a general rule, a court will not grant a motion for rehearing or

reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled upon by the court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication. Id. (citing E.D. MICH. L.R. 7.1(g)(3)).

Petitioner merely advances the same arguments in his motion for

reconsideration that he raised in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and other

pleadings. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied, because petitioner

is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied the petition for writ

of habeas corpus and denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. See Hence v.

Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration [Dkt. # 161] is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: March 29, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon James

Cristini #244014, 16770 S. Watertower Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49788 and counsel of

record on March 29, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:01-cv-74483-DPH Doc # 164 Filed 03/29/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 4797
---



##### 



(i)
    
    the approval by shareholders of the Company of a merger or consolidation of the
Company with any other corporation, other than a merger or consolidation which would
result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior thereto
continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into
voting securities of the surviving entity) more than fifty percent (50%) of the total
voting power represented by the voting securities of the Company or such surviving
entity outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation;(ii)
    
    the approval by the shareholders of the Company of a plan to complete
liquidation of the Company or an agreement for the sale or disposition by the Company
of all or substantially all of the Company assets;(iii)
    
    any person (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) becoming the beneficial owner (as
defined in Rule 13d-3 under said Act), directly or indirectly, of securities of the
Company representing 50% or more of the total voting power represented by the Companys
then outstanding voting securities.




---



##### 



et seq.
  Sincerely,/s/ John W. CombsJohn W. CombsPresident & Chief Executive Officer Position Accepted/s/ Don Girskis                    1/23/08Signature                              Date
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ ___________ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

April 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128355 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, MARK P. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Justices

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee SC: 128355

v COA: 257993 WCAC: 04-000002 AUTO LAB DIAGNOST ICS & TUNE UP CENTERS and FARM ERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants-Appellants, and

SECOND INJURY FUND, PERMANENT & TOTAL DISABILITY PROVISIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of the order of February 24, 2006 is considered and it is DENIED because it does not appear the order was entered erroneously.

C AVANAGH and KELLY , JJ., would grant reconsideration.

W EAVER , J., states as follows:

I would grant reconsideration and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for
consideration of Camburn v Northwest School Dist (After Remand), 459 Mich 471 (1999).

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 26, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit
10.24





Loan
Agreement (English Translation)





Lender
      (Party A):         Lifang
      Chen
            Borrower
      (Party B): Sutor Technology Group
Limited




In
accordance with relevant Chinese laws ,decrees and pertinent rules and
regulations ,Party A and Party B have reached the following items through
friendly negotiation, have executed this Agreement as follows:




ARTICLE
1. Amount of the Loan


1.1 Party
B intends to borrow $100,000 from Party A for working capital. Party A will wire
such amount of the Loan to Party B or its designated bank account.





ARTICLE
2. Term of the Loan


2.1 The
term of the loan is three years, starting from March 11, 2009 to March 11,
2012.





ARTICLE
3. Interest Rate


3.1 The
annual interest rate is 3.6% which is subject to adjustment based on the lending
rate over the same period published by the People’s Bank of China as well as the
parties’ agreement.





ARTICLE
4. Method of Payment


4.1 Party
B shall repay the principal and accrued interest in full within 15 days after
the maturity date. Otherwise, Party B shall be legally liable for all the unpaid
amount.




ARTICLE
5. Breach


5.1.
Party A shall wire the Loan amount to Party B or its designated bank account
within 5 days after the execution of the Agreement. If Party A fails to wire the
Loan amount to Party B on time, Party A shall pay a penalty in accordance with
applicable laws.


5.2 Any
party that fails to carry out its responsibilities specified in the Agreement
shall be deemed as breach of the Agreement. The breaching party shall be liable
to all costs and expenses to the other party.





ARTICLE
6. Termination


6.1 Party
B shall make the repayment pursuant to the Agreement. Party B shall give Party A
at least 60 days notice if Party B intends to request an extension to repay the
Loan.  The parties shall reach an agreement with regard to an
extension based on friendly negotiation.





6.2 The
Agreement becomes effective upon execution. The Agreement shall not be amended
without mutual consent of both parties. The parties shall reach separate
agreement with regard to matters not covered by the Agreement.








ARTICLE
7. Dispute





The
parties shall consult each other to settle any disputes. If the parties fail to
settle any dispute, any party may take the dispute to an appropriate local
court.




ARTICLE
8. Miscellaneous





8.1 The
appendices of the Agreement are deemed as integral parts of the Agreement and
are legally binding.




8.2 The
Agreement is executed in duplicate and each party shall hold one
copy.




8.3 Any
additional agreement reached by the parties shall be listed below.





Lender
      (Party A): Lifang Chen
                  
                  Borrower
      (Party B): Sutor Technology Group LimitedDate:March 11,
      2009
                  
                  Date:March 11,
      2009Signature:
                  /s/ Lifang Chen
                  
                  Signature:
      (Seal)