alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed: June 3, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7897 (CR-94-39-H) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Barry McCormick, Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed March 13, 1997, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3 -- the district court case number is corrected to read "CR-94- 39 -H." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7897 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY MCCORMICK, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-39-H) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. William Arthur Webb, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to criminal actions have ten days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The only exception to the appeal period is when the district court extends the time to appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect. The district court entered its order on November 20, 1996;Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on December 9, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension ofthe appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore 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
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33530-33531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16390]

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

[[Page 33531]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Community Partners for Healthy Farming, Program 
Announcement 646, and Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury 
Research, Education, and Prevention, Program Announcement 647: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Name: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
SEP: Community Partners for Healthy Farming, Program Announcement 
646, and Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, 
Education, and Prevention, Program Announcement 647.
    Times and Dates: 8 p.m.-10 p.m., August 4, 1996; 8 a.m.-6 p.m., 
August 5, 1996; 8 a.m.-5 p.m., August 6, 1996.
    Place: Commonwealth Hilton Hotel, I-75 and Turfway Road, 
Florence, Kentucky 45275.
    Status: Closed.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to 
Program Announcements 646 and 647.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., 
and the Determination of the Associate Director for Management and 
Operations, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463.
    Contact Person for More Information: Price Connor, Ph.D., 
Research Grant Program Officer, Office of Extramural Coordination 
and Special Projects, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health, CDC, M/S D30, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 
telephone 404/639-3342.

    Dated: June 21, 1996.
John C. Burckhardt,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 96-16390 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1058 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer 

to its pre-1991 level, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BOND, Mr. 

CHAMBLISS, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Brewers Excise and 

5 Economic Relief Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1990 TAX INCREASE ON BEER. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 5051(a) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposiVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:42 May 19, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1058.IS S1058

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 1058 IS

1 tion and rate of tax on beer) is amended by striking ‘‘$18’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘$9’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act. 

6 SEC. 3. TAX RELIEF FOR SMALL BREWERIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

8 5051(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

9 to a reduced rate of tax for certain domestic production) 

10 is amended— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘$7’’ in the heading and insert12 ing ‘‘$3.50’’, and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘$7’’ in the text and inserting 

14 ‘‘$3.50’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact17 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
United States of America,

Plaintiff(s)/Petition er(s),

vs.

James Larkin, et al.,

Defendant(s)/Respondent(s)

I, Seetha Ramachandran

admission to appear and practice in this action on behalf of

CASE No: 2'.18-cr-00422-SPL

Application of Attorney For Admission To Practice Pro Hac

Vice Pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(bX2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

NOTICE: APPLICATION FEE REQUIRED!

hereby apply to the Court undel LRCiv 83. l (bX2) lbr pro hac vice

James Larkin

City and State of Principal Residence New York, New York

Firm Name: Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

Address: 919 Third Avenue

City: New York

Firm/Business Phone: ( 212 ì 756-2000

State: NY zip, 10022

Suite:

Firm Fax Phone (212 ì 593-5955 E-mail Address: seetha.ramachandran@srz.com

I am admitted to practice bef'ore the fbllowing courts. (attach additional sheets if necessary)

TITLE OF COURT DATE OF ADMISSION IN GOOD STANDING?

New York State, Appellate Division, First Department 02t05t2001 es

United States District Court, Southern District of New York 0910412001 flv.*

E *o*

il *o*

fl*o* United States District Court, Eastern District of New York 0910412001 Yes

* Explain

(An Original Certifìcate of Good Standing froma FEDERAL BAR in which an applicant has been adûitted dated no rmre than 45 days

prior to submission of this application is required.)

I lrave concurrently, or within I year of this application, made pro hac vice applications to this Court in the tbllowing actions (attach

additional sheets if necessary):

Case Number Title of Action Date Granted or Denied*

* Explain:

ALL APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

If you answer YES to either of theþllowing questions, please explain all circumstances on a separalgpqge.

Are you currently the subject of a disciplinary investigation or proceedin gby any Bar or Court? Il y.t

Have you ever been disbarred fiom practice in any Court? [ Vw E *o

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trueand correct; that I am not a resident of, nor anl regularly employed, engaged in business, professional

or other activities in the State of Ariæna; and that I ¡m not currently suspended, disbarrd or subject to disciplinary proceedings in any court. I certiff that I

have read and will ascribe to the StandardsforProfessionalConduct, will complywiththe Rules of Practice ofthe United States District Court forthe

District ofArizona ("Local Rubs"), and will subscribe to receive court notices as required by LRCiv 83.1(c).

October 3,2018

No

Date

Fee Receipt #

Signature of Applicant

(Rev.04/12)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 332 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00239

- CR
William George Brown v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 17

- 10

- 30284

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 1, 2019
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 17, 2014

NO. 03-14-00624-CV

L. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 15, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

s0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

139831 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139831 

 COA: 280599 

Washtenaw CC: 06-001948-FC 

MARCUS MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Evolution Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis McLaughlin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




April 20, 2010




/s/ Dennis McLaughlinDennis McLaughlinTitle: Chief Executive Officer and President
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Sept. 29, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 83 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 00 39 2- CR-T-2 6- TBM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us REGINALD BUCHANAN Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 29 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, HULL and FAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s PER CURI AM: Ada m Tan en ba u m, ap po in te d co un se l fo r Reg in al d Bu ch an an in th is di rect cri m in al ap pe al , ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw fro m fu rth er rep res en ta ti on of th e ap pe ll an t,be cau se , in hi s op in io n, th e a p p e a l i s wit ho ut m eri t. Co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f

pu rs ua nt to And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 3 8 , 87 S.Ct

. 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2 d 49 3 (1 96 7)

. Our in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e en ti re reco rd rev eal s th at co un se l’s as se ss m en t of th e rel at iv e m eri t of th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n of th e
en ti re reco rd rev eal s no arg ua bl e is su es of m eri t, co un s e l ’s mo t i o n to wit hd raw is GRANTED , and Bu ch an an ’s con vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e are AFFIRMED

.

2
Exhibit 32.1



CEO and CFO CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Edward B. Wilson, President and Chief Executive Officer, and John T. Hendrick, Chief Financial Officer, of Akesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic 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 this Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Edward B. WilsonEdward B. Wilson,President, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorBy:

/s/ John T. HendrickJohn T. Hendrick,Chief Financial Officer




Date: April 28, 2005
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

OAO 435

AZ Form (Rev. 10/2018)

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

9 APPEAL 9 CRIMINAL

9 NON-APPEAL 9 CIVIL

9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

9 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER (Specify)

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested.)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

9TESTIMONY (Specify)

9PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

9OTHER (Specify)

9VOIR DIRE

9OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

9OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

9CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

9OPINION OF COURT

9JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9SENTENCING

9BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(Check all that apply.)

ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS 9 9

PAPER COPY

PDF (e-mail)

ASCII (e-mail)

14 DAYS 9 9

7 DAYS(expedited) 9 9

DAILY

9 9

HOURLY

9 9

REALTIME

9 9

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING MORE THAN ONE FORMAT, 

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

3 DAYS

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.) By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1773 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Chordiant
      Software, Inc.


Cupertino,
      California




We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 333-150666, No. 333-100843, No. 333-83506; No. 333-60156;
333-49032; No. 333-42844; No. 333-34502; No. 333-110743, No. 333-131057, and
333-145080) of Chordiant Software, Inc. of our reports dated November 18, 2008,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule, and to Chordiant Software, Inc’s internal control over financial
reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/
BDO Seidman, LLP




San
Jose, California


November
18, 2008
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ecoland International, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, I, David Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.           Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ecoland International, Inc.





Date: April 14, 2011





/s/ David WallaceDavid Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland

International, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 4, 2015

d1028

Order 

Clerk

November 4, 2015

151376

TRUSTEES OF THE METROPOLITAN

DETROIT PLUMBING INDUSTRY

TRAINING TRUST FUND/DETROIT

PLUMBING INDUSTRY JOINT

APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151376

COA: 323041

St. Clair CC: 14-000437-AV

STEVEN T. RIDENOUR,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

MARKMAN, J. I would remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration 

as on leave granted of the meaning of the contract in dispute, in particular the 

significance of the term “engaged” in that contract. 

BERNSTEIN, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ecoland
International, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2009, I, David
Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.      Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2009,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ending February 28, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Ecoland International,
Inc.




Dated:
November 16, 2009.




/s/  David
      WallaceDavid
      Wallace, Chief Executive Officer ofEcoland
      International, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NORMAN DORISE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELLA BULLEA CUMMINGS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case No. 09-10042

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER AFFIRMING JANUARY 29, 2010 ORDER DENYING 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Before the Court are Plaintiff Norman Dorise’s Objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s order denying his request for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 55). 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and finds oral argument will not aid in the

resolution of this motion. See E. D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the

Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's order.

According to Plaintiff, he complied with the Magistrate Judge's earlier order to file

his amended complaint no later than February 2, 2010. He filed his complaint on

January 25, 2010. The Court agrees that the amended complaint was filed in

compliance with the order. The confusion arises because when Plaintiff submitted his

amended complaint, he also included a second motion for leave to file an amended

complaint. That motion merely duplicates the motion previously granted. See Doc.

Nos. 46, 52. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion as moot. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) the Court may “reconsider any pretrial

matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order

is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 
2

Despite Plaintiff's Objection, it is clear that Plaintiff's "second" request to amend

his complaint is identical to his first motion seeking leave to amend his complaint. 

Therefore, his second motion is moot. 

In sum, the Amended Complaint, filed January 25, 2010, is the operative

pleading. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: March 19, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon Plaintiff and counsel of record on this

date by ordinary mail and/or electronic filing.

 s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

 Case Manager