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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

THOMAS M. BEAUDOIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-CV-14289-DT

DONALD McGEHEE, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS DONALD MCGEHEE, LOUIS ALOSSO, 

KEVIN SHEEN, AND “SCHLECTER” FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE 

AND LACK OF PROSECUTION

On October 8, 2008, Plaintiff Thomas M. Beaudoin filed his complaint against

multiple Defendants. On April 3, 2009, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why

Defendants Donald McGehee, Louis Alosso, Kevin Sheen, and “Schlecter” should not

be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to effect service. Plaintiff timely

responded, agreeing to dismiss Defendants Alosso, Sheen and Schlecter. With respect

to Defendant McGehee, Plaintiff states that the sheriff has had “a very difficult time

serving the defendants that work for the racing commission.” (4/15/09 Resp. at 1.) The

court finds that Plaintiff’s response is insufficient to justify his failure to effect service on

Defendant McGehee. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if service is not effectuated

within 120 days, the court shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant. Further, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2 provides that if the

parties have not taken action within a reasonable time, the court may enter an order

dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. Here, Plaintiff has not shown “good cause”

2:08-cv-14289-RHC-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 05/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 173
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\08-14289.BEAUDOIN.DismissMultipleDefendants.chd.wpd

2

for his failure to effect service on Defendants, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), or for his failure to

prosecute this case, E.D. Mich. LR 41.2. Plaintiff does not specify how many times

service was attempted, nor why he did not move earlier for court approval of service by

alternate means. Indeed, Plaintiff did not update the court regarding any of these

Defendants until the court issued its April 3, 2009 “Order to Show Cause.” “Absent a

showing of good cause to justify a failure to effect timely service, the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure compel dismissal.” Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996)

(citing Habib v. Gen. Motors Corp., 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994)). It is Plaintiff’s

burden to establish good cause for failing to timely effect service. Habib, 15 F.3d at 73. 

Inasmuch as Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden or otherwise satisfactorily respond to

the court’s “Order to Show Cause,”

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Donald McGehee, Louis Alosso, Kevin Sheen,

and “Schlecter” are dismissed without prejudice for lack of service and failure to

prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); E.D. Mich. LR 41.2.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 4, 2009

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

on this date, May 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-14289-RHC-MKM Doc # 25 Filed 05/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 174
#### James A. STEWART, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-7023.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 5, 2003.

Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
O rder filed December 10 , 201 5



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ____



### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 1 51

- CR

______ _ ____



### CHARLOTTE NAOMI SHILOH , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35 th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Tri al Court Cause No. CR22639

O R D E R

T his appeal ha s be come unduly stalled due to the failure of A ppellant’s

appoint ed counsel, Landon H. Thompson , to file an appellate brief

. T he brief was

originally due on September 10, 201 5. This court has previously granted two

extension s of time to file Appellant’s brief : one pursuant to a motion file d by

Thompson and one on this court’s own motion

. After those deadlines had passed,

the clerk of this court contacted Tho mpson by phone on November 9, 2015, and was2

informed by Thompson that he was working on the brief and that he would file it in

the next few days. Appellant’s brief has yet to be filed in this court.

By this order, Landon H. Thompson i s ORDERED to file in this court a brief

on behalf of A ppellant on or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednes day

, December 16 , 201 5

.

At that time, Appellant’s brief shall have already been e

- filed or be present in the

portal for the Eleventh Court of Appeals through eFileTexas.gov

.

PER CURIAM

December 10

, 201 5

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Dennis McLaughlin, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/of Evolution Resources, Inc.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls

6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 21, 2009

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| |                                             
| | /s/ Dennis McLaughlin                       
| | Dennis McLaughlin                           
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald WILSON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65603.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 15, 1994.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant appeals from his conviction of possessing a prohibited article in a correctional institution, a class B felony, § 217.360.1(4) RSMo (Supp.1993). Defendant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment as a prior offender, with the sentence to run consecutively with his current sentence. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorán-dum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the Commission is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31943-31944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15861]



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

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE


The Federal Register Online Via GPO Access; Meeting and 
Demonstration

    The United States Government Printing Office (GPO) will hold a 
meeting for Federal agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations, and 
the public interested in an overview and demonstration of the 
Government Printing Office's award-winning online

[[Page 31944]]

service, GPO Access, provided under the Government Printing Office 
Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-
940).
    The demonstration will be held at the United States Government 
Printing Office, Carl Hayden Room, 8th Floor, 732 North Capitol Street 
NW., Washington, DC, on Thursday, July 18, from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 
and 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. There is no charge to attend. GPO is 
accessible via the Metro from Union Station, using the Red Line.
    The online Federal Register service offers access to the daily 
issues of the Federal Register by 6 a.m. on the day of publication at 
no charge to the user. All notices, rules and proposed rules, 
Presidential documents, executive orders, separate parts, and reader 
aids are included in the database. Documents are available as ASCII 
text files and in typeset form as Adobe Acrobat Portable Document 
Format (PDF) files. Graphics are included in the PDF files and are also 
available as separate files in the TIFF format for the 1994 (Volume 59) 
Federal Register. The online Federal Register is available via the 
Internet or as a dial-in service. Historical data is available from 
January 1994 forward.
    Other databases currently available online through GPO Access 
include the Government Manual; GILS Records; The Budget of the United 
States Government, Fiscal Year 1997; Congressional Record; 
Congressional Record Index, including the History of Bills; 
Congressional Bills; Public Laws; U.S. Code; and GAO Reports; and a 
growing list of important Government documents available on the same 
day of publication.
    Individuals interested in attending may reserve a space by 
contacting John R. Berger, Marketing Specialist, at the GPO's Office of 
Electronic Information Dissemination Services, by Internet     e-mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90faf2f5e2f7f5e2d0f7e0ffbef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9a3abacbbaeacbb89aeb9a6e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>; by telephone: 202-512-1525; or by fax: 202-512-
1262. Seating reservations will be accepted through Monday, July 15, 
1996.

Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer.
[FR Doc. 96-15861 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-02-F

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JANICE DONALD,

Plaintiffs,

Case Number 08-14784-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a report and recommendation on October 28,

2009 recommending that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary

judgment [Dkt. # 21] be granted and Plaintiff Janice Donald’s motion for summary judgment be

denied [Dkt. # 18]. The report and recommendation was served on Plaintiff the same day, starting

the ten-day period in which she could object. 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff did not file an objection

within the required time period. A party’s failure to file objections to the report and

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local

231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

140, 149 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt.

# 22] is ADOPTED. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 21] is

1:08-cv-14784-TLL-RSW Doc # 23 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 425
-2-

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 18] is

DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 9, 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 December 9, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:08-cv-14784-TLL-RSW Doc # 23 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 426
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-72877, 333-91767, 333-30242, 333-41482, 333-59358, 333-100566, and 333-107702) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113674 and 333-33794) of our reports dated March 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Vignette Corporation, Vignette Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Vignette Corporation,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Austin, Texas 

March 9, 2006
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

5 filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 FRANCES TORRES,

8 Petitioner-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 30,111 

10 JOSEPH TORRES,

11 Respondent-Appellant,

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY

13 Sheri A. Raphaelson, District Judge

14 Brigitte Lotze law Office

15 Brigitte Lotze

16 Toas, NM

17 for Appellee

18 Kelan Emery

19 Taos, NM

20 Helen L. Bennett

21 Albuquerque, NM

22 for Appellant

23 MEMORANDUM OPINION

24 FRY, Chief Judge.
2

1 Respondent appeals several rulings in this domestic relations matter. In this

2 Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to dismiss for lack of

3 a final order. Respondent has filed a memorandum in support of our proposed

4 summary dismissal of the case, as well as a motion that asks the Court to retain the

5 record proper for use in any appeal that is filed once a final order is entered.

6 We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final order and we grant Respondent’s

7 motion to retain the record proper. As this appeal has been dismissed, in any

8 subsequent appeal Respondent may wish to file, he will have to file a new notice of

9 appeal and docketing statement, and will have to supplement the record in accordance

10 with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 

13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

14 WE CONCUR:

15 

16 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge

17 

18 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3593 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3593

To require that reductions in force procedures under the new personnel 
management system of the Federal Aviation Administration be subject to 
                         veterans' preference.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 1996

  Mr. Buyer (for himself, Mr. Filner, and Mr. Solomon) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
  and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 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 require that reductions in force procedures under the new personnel 
management system of the Federal Aviation Administration be subject to 
                         veterans' preference.

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

SECTION 1. VETERANS' PREFERENCE REQUIRED FOR REDUCTIONS IN FORCE IN THE 
              FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.

    Section 347(b) of the Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (109 Stat. 460) is amended by 
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6), by striking the period at 
the end of paragraph (7) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the 
end the following:
            ``(8) sections 3501-3504, as such sections relate to 
        veterans' preference.''.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  Exhibit 10.19B    
    


 Addendum to the 2008 Quarterly Executive Bonus Plan  


Summary
of Incentive:    The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Committee") of Omnicell, Inc. (the "Company") seeks to further
incentivize the executive officers of the Company by providing for an additional incentive cash bonus for each executive officer who is a participant (a "Participant") in the Company's 2008 Quarterly
Executive Bonus Plan (the "2008 Bonus Plan"). The maximum cash bonus an executive officer shall be eligible for hereunder is equal to 70% of such Participant's Incentive Target (as such term is
defined in the 2008 Bonus Plan) for each of the first and second quarter of 2008 (such amount is referred to as the "Maximum Year End Cash Bonus"). 


Summary
of Eligibility:    A year end incentive cash bonus shall be paid to each Participant in the event that the Company meets certain Other Threshold
Target(s) (as such term is defined in the 2008 Bonus Plan) set by the Committee (such Other Threshold Target(s) referred to herein as the "Additional Other Target(s)"). A Participant will be eligible
to receive the Maximum Year End Incentive Cash Bonus if the Company meets or exceeds the maximum stated metric of the Additional Other Target(s). If the Company's actual performance does not meet the
maximum stated metric of the Additional Other Target(s), but meets or exceeds the threshold stated metric of the Additional Other Target(s), a year end incentive cash bonus shall be paid to each of
the Participants on a graduated scale consistent with the terms the Committee shall attribute to each of such lower stated metrics. 


Effective
Date:    July 1, 2008 


Payment
Schedule:    Any cash bonus earned hereunder shall be paid on the first payroll period after the Committee has determined that the additional Other
Threshold Targets were reached. 


Administration:    The
year end incentive cash bonus described herein shall be determined in the Committee's sole discretion. The Committee reserves the right to
make changes to the year end incentive cash bonus terms at any time. The Committee may alter the payout based on factors including: the achievement of publicly announced targets, product milestones,
strategic goals, cross functional teamwork and collaboration, and unforeseen changes in the economy and/or geopolitical climate. All other terms of the 2008 Bonus Plan shall remain the same and
nothing contained in this Addendum to the 2008 Quarterly Executive Bonus Plan shall be construed to alter amounts paid previously earned under the 2008 Bonus Plan. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.19B
#### Charles JOHANNSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41564.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 12, 1989.

Clifford R. Saulter, Jefferson City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief after an evidentia-ry hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT (10)(e)


 


SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY

2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


The Empire District Electric Company 2006
Stock Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


1.                                       Section 21
is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“The Company
shall be entitled to withhold the amount of withholding tax payable with
respect to any Awards and Share deliveries in lieu of cash payments and to sell
such number of Shares as may be necessary to produce the amount so required to
be withheld, unless the recipient supplies to the Company cash in the amount
requested by the Company for the purpose. 
The person entitled to receive Shares pursuant to the Award will be
given notice as far in advance as practicable to permit such cash payment to be
made to the Company.  The Company may, in
lieu of sale of Shares, defer making delivery of Shares until indemnified to
its satisfaction with respect to any such withholding tax.  The Committee may adopt rules allowing
the recipient of any Award payable in Shares, or any person electing to receive
Shares under Section 19, to satisfy any applicable tax withholding
requirements in whole or in part by delivering to the Company Shares or by
instructing the Company to withhold Shares otherwise deliverable to such person
as part of such Award.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment on the 24th day of July, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  THE EMPIRE
  DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William L. Gipson

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President & CEO

  



 


ATTEST


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Janet S. Watson

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Secretary-Treasurer