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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Nos. 08-20487

KIMANI HARDGE, Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

Defendant.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF TERM OF IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

This matter presently is before the Court on Defendant Kimani Hardge’s

motion for a modification of his sentence, filed June 17, 2013. In support of his

request for relief, Defendant relies on the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) of 2010 and

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ May 17, 2013 decision in United States v.

Blewett, 719 F.3d 482. In that decision, a panel of the Sixth Circuit held that the

FSA– which significantly reduced sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine–

should be applied retroactively. On August 30, 2013, the government filed a

response to Defendant’s motion, indicating that the Blewett decision does not apply

to Defendant because his guideline range was calculated based on his status as a

Career Offender. The government nevertheless asked the Court to hold

2:08-cr-20487-PJD-SDP Doc # 88 Filed 12/16/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 599
Defendant’s motion in abeyance pending en banc review of the Blewett decision,

which had been granted on July 11, 2013.

On December 3, 2013, the en banc court issued its decision holding that the

FSA does not retroactively undo final sentences. United States v. Blewett, – F.3d –

, 2013 WL 6231727 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013). Even if the FSA applies retroactively,

it does not afford Defendant relief because he was sentenced pursuant to the career

offender guidelines. See United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288, 293 (6th Cir.

2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1537 (2010) (holding that the district court did not

err in denying the defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence based on an

amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines, where the defendant was sentenced as

a career offender); United States v. Drewery, – F. App’x – , 2013 WL 4054935

(6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2013) (holding that the defendants, whose sentences were based

on the career offender guidelines, were not entitled to a reduction in their sentences

under the FSA). In short, Defendant is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability with respect to this

decision, to the extent one is required for Defendant to file an appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for modification of term of

imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.

2

2:08-cr-20487-PJD-SDP Doc # 88 Filed 12/16/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 600
Date: December 16, 2013 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Kimani Hardge, #42972-039

FCI Allenwood Medium

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 2000

White Deer, PA 17887

AUSA Steven P. Cares

3

2:08-cr-20487-PJD-SDP Doc # 88 Filed 12/16/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 601
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Criminal Case No. 08-cr-20669-4

Civil Case No. 13-cv-14343

CARLOS SOLER NORONA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

NOTICE AND ORDER FOR RESPONSE

The Defendant has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 

28 § USC 2255 on October 15, 2013.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is to file a response and

brief to the “Motion to vacate, ...” by December 12, 2013. The reply, if any, is to be

filed by January 13, 2014. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 31, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel and pro se

parties of record on this date, October 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cr-20669-RHC-MKM Doc # 207 Filed 10/31/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1848
Amendment to WABCO Holdings Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 WABCO HOLDINGS INC. OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, WABCO Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) adopted the WABCO Holdings Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, under
Section 10.5 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to amend the Plan on the terms set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of December 31, 2008: 
  

	1.	The first paragraph of Section 5.3 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following sentence at the end of such paragraph: 

  

	  	“Any such adjustment described in this Section 5.3 shall be done in a manner that complies with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, to the extent
applicable.” 

  

	2.	The second sentence of Section 9.1 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following at the end of such sentence: 

 “, which pro-rated award shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the date the Participant terminates employment”

  

	3.	The second sentence of Section 9.2 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following at the end of such sentence: 

 “, which pro-rated award shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the date the Participant terminates employment”

  

	4.	Section 10.2 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following sentence at the end of such Section: 

  

	  	“The provisions relating to Alternative Awards and the ability to substitute an Option, Stock Appreciation Right, Restricted Share or Restricted Unit for an Alternative Award
shall only apply to those Incentive Awards that are not subject to Section 409A of the Code.” 

  

	5.	All other terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 








 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has caused its name to be signed by its duly authorized officers
as of the day and year first above written. 
 WABCO HOLDINGS INC. 
 

 
 By 
 Name: Kevin Tarrant 
 Title: Chief Human Resources Officer
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II,
Chief Executive 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 IIRowland
      W. Day IIPrincipal
      Executive Officer




Dated:
  August 18, 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.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17074]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-998-001]


Cenerprise, Inc.; Notice of Filing

June 28, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 19, 1996, Cenerprise, Inc. (Cenerprise), 
corporate successor to Cenergy, Inc. (Cenergy), filed an amendment to 
its application in Docket No. ER96-998-000 filed pursaunt to Section 
205 of the Federal Power Act, Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations, 
and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, for an order 
approving certain changes to Cenerprise's Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 and 
changes to its Standards of Conduct.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before July 10, 1996. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-17074 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Southern States Power Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harrison A. McCoy, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: October 29, 2003
/s/ Harrison A. McCoy, IIIBy: Harrison A. McCoy, IIIIts: Chief Financial Officer 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern States Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by Southern States Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15338]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Proposal To Award Concession Permits; Public Notice

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby given that the National Park Service 
proposes to award twenty (20) concession permits authorizing continued 
operation of canoe, inner tube, and johnboat rentals, merchandise 
stores, woodlots, hot showers and related services for the public of 
Ozark National Scenic Riverways for a period of five (5) years and will 
expire December 31, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1996.

ADDRESS: Interested parties should contact the Superintendent, Ozark 
National Scenic Riverways, P.O. Box 490, Van Buren, Missouri 63965, to 
obtain a copy of the prospectus describing the requirements of the 
proposed permits.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These permit renewals have been determined 
to be categorically excluded from the procedural provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and no environmental document will be 
prepared
    The existing concessionaires have performed their obligations to 
the satisfaction of the Secretary under existing permits which expired 
by limitation of time on December 31, 1994/95, and therefore pursuant 
to the provisions of section 5 of the Act of October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 
969; 16 U.S.C. 20), each existing concessioner is entitled to be given 
preference in the renewal of the permit and in the negotiation of a new 
permit, providing that the existing concessioner submits a responsive 
offer (a timely offer which meets the terms and conditions of the 
Prospectus). This means that the permit will be awarded to the party 
submitting the best offer, provided that if the best offer was not 
submitted by the existing concessioner, then the existing concessioner 
will be afforded the opportunity to match the best offer. If the 
existing concessioner agrees to match the best offer, then the permit 
will be awarded to the existing concessioner.
    If the existing concessioner does not submit a responsive offer, 
the right of preference in renewal shall be considered to have been 
waived, and the permit will then be awarded to the party that has 
submitted the best responsive offer.
    The Secretary will consider and evaluate all proposals received as 
a result of this notice. Any proposal, including that of the existing 
concessioner, must be received by the Superintendent, not later than 
the sixtieth (60th) day following publication of this notice to be 
considered and evaluated.

    Dated: May 15, 1996.
Edward D. Carlin,
Acting Field Director, Midwest Area.
[FR Doc. 96-15338 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Index of Exhibits 

Exhibit A: Michael Piccarreta’s May 1, 2018 Letter to AUSAs Rapp and Lanza 

Exhibit B: Whitney Z. Bernstein’s May 23, 2019 Letter to AUSAs Jones and Rapp 

Exhibit C: AUSA Rapp’s December 10, 2018 Letter to Defense Counsel 

Exhibit D: Government Discovery Production Discovery Letters 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 627-1 Filed 06/01/19 Page 1 of 1
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

I, John W. Combs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.

|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                                                                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: February 9, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN W. COMBS
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Name:             |  | John W. Combs                                                                
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Title:            |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.2


                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-0XLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Annual Report of HBOA Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William Shope, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ William Shope
-----------------------
William Shope
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003


















6007697
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
Exhibit 32.1    CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report (the Report) on the Form 10-Q of Siga Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the three months ended October 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bob Hogarth, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   Date: October 2, 2013   /s/ BOB HOGARTH Bob Hogarth Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS OF ITC/\DELCOM, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE
RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1997. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       94,373,610
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                24,512,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,060,842
<INVENTORY>                                   1,018,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            144,416,014
<PP&E>                                      167,360,073
<DEPRECIATION>                               25,825,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              386,104,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        27,970,499
<BONDS>                                     202,977,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      14,808
<COMMON>                                        248,176
<OTHER-SE>                                  148,002,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                386,104,477
<SALES>                                     114,589,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            114,589,998
<CGS>                                        54,550,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               111,137,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                801,339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           21,367,351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (13,663,957)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (3,324,466)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (10,265,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (507,515)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                (10,772,874)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.54)


</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ 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 applicati on for leave to appeal the August 27, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Herold *v.*Washington National Insurance Company, Appellant.

Argued October 13, 1937.

*564Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.

*566
      *George H. Detweiler,*for appellant.

*J. Kennard Weaver,*with him *Wilhelm F. Knauer,*for appellee.

October 27, 1937:

Per Curiam,

The opinion of the learned court below, by Judge Crane, as printed in the Reporter’s Statement, sufficiently answers the assignments of error which relate to the submission of the case to the jury, the refusal of binding instructions on the merits and the refusal to hold that the action was prematurely brought because instituted before seven years had elapsed from the date *567of the alleged accidental death. To the cases cited in the opinion, supporting the action of the trial judge, may be added, *Sunny Point Packing Co. v. Faigh,*63 Fed. (2d) 921, 924; *The San Rafael,*141 Fed. 270, 279; *Harvey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.,*200 Fed. 925, 928; *Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mettler,*185 U. S. 308, 316.

Circumstances, tending to show that the insured was subjected to specific peril or serious danger on the day he was last seen or heard of, were given in evidence which, if believed by the jury, were sufficient, in our opinion, to support a finding that he was accidentally drowned on July 7, 1935, although his body was not recovered. In that event, it was not necessary to wait seven years before bringing suit, and the case was one of fact for the jury. The decisions of our Supreme Court and of this Court relied on by appellant are easily distinguishable. They relate to cases where satisfactory and sufficient evidence that the insured had been subjected to serious peril of a nature that might prevent the recovery of the body was lacking, or the beneficiary elected to rely on the presumption of death arising seven years after the unexplained disappearance of the insured rather than attempt to prove that the latter died on a certain date within the seven years.

As to the other matters assigned for error, we find nothing improper in a trial judge suggesting to counsel for the plaintiff, on the direct examination of his own witness, not to go into matters not necessary to make out his case — “Make out a prima facie case and stop”. A trial judge’s functions are not limited to those of a mere umpire.

Judgment affirmed.