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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-05

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

RODRIGO FARIAS-ZUNIGA,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

All parties having signed a consent, on April 16, 2009, this Defendant was referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for the purpose

of receiving Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on April 21, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath, confirmed the

Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding each of the

inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Based upon

the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that the Defendant is competent to

tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made, and 3) that the offense

to which he pled is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential

elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation

report.

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 97 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 291
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596

(6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties are

advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections

a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security,

474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: April 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date, electronically served

on Shane Waller and George Bush, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: April 22, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 97 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 292
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE 

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

GEORGE MILTON WICKER, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 12-0610 PRPC 

 

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR0000-136401 

The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge 

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph Maziarz 

Counsel for Respondent 

George Wicker, Florence 

Petitioner
STATE v. WICKER 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon 

W. Thompson delivered the following decision of the Court. 

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 In 1984, petitioner George Milton Wicker pled no contest to 

five counts of kidnapping and four counts of sexual assault. The trial 

court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 105 years’ imprisonment and 

this court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Wicker 

now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his third successive 

petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction under Arizona 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶2 Wicker argues that the Sexually Violent Persons Act (“SVP 

Act”), now codified at A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 to –3717, constitutes a significant 

change in the law that is retroactive and entitles him to be resentenced to a 

shorter term of imprisonment. The SVP Act became effective in 1996. 

1995 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 257, § 11(B) (1st Reg. Sess.). Wicker committed 

the offenses in 1983 and his convictions became final in 1987. 

¶3 We grant review and deny relief. The civil commitment 

provisions of the SVP Act could apply to Wicker if he lives long enough to 

complete his sentences. See Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 308, ¶ 44, 

987 P.2d 779, 794 (App. 1999) (holding that ex post facto prohibitions do 

not apply to the civil commitment provisions of the SVP Act). There is, 

however, nothing in the SVP Act that requires the trial court to resentence 

Wicker to shorter terms of imprisonment simply to increase the likelihood 

that he might live long enough to be subject to the Act, and Wicker offers 

no authority to the contrary. Further, this issue is precluded because 

Wicker could have raised it in a prior, timely post-conviction relief 

proceeding after the SVP Act became effective in 1996. This is Wicker’s 

second post-conviction relief action since 1996. Any claim that a 

defendant could have raised in an earlier post-conviction relief proceeding 

is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 

32.2(b) apply. 
STATE v. WICKER 

Decision of the Court 

3 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we deny relief.
Exhibit 10.1

2010 Executive Bonus Plan

NeurogesX Executive Bonus Plan  2010

ELIGIBILITY

All Full-Time Regular and Part-Time Regular (minimum 30 hours per week during the Bonus Plan period) Executives hired prior to
October 1, 2010 except for those Executives eligible under a separate incentive based compensation plan, such as the Incentive Compensation Plan. Executives hired between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2010 will be eligible for a
pro-rated bonus based on the percentage of the year worked. Individuals must be a current active employee at the time of payout in order to be eligible for any payment. Any accrued bonus amounts at December 31, 2010 forfeited by individuals due
to termination prior to payout will be re-allocated to remaining participants on a pro rata basis.

BONUS POOL

The total amount to be paid to all employees NeurogesX Executive Bonus Plan 2010 will be determined at the sole
discretion of the Board of Directors (the Board) at the first meeting of the Board in 2011, as recommended by the Compensation Committee.

COMPONENTS

The Executive Bonus will be based entirely (100%) on Corporate Performance and Individual Performance.

1. Corporate Performance: Payment of any bonus will be dependent on the accomplishment of the major corporate
Milestones as determined by the Board. Milestones shall be weighted as determined by the Board.

NOTE: Failure
to accomplish each of the Milestones could result in no bonus payment under this plan for 2010 or may result in a reduced bonus allocation. It will be at the sole discretion of the Board to determine whether any or all of the bonus is to be paid.

TIMING OF PAYOUT

The Bonus plan will be paid as soon as practical in the following year after the Board has determined the bonus pool. Individuals must be
a current active employee at the time of payout in order to be eligible for any bonus payment. Individuals not employed by NeurogesX at the time of the bonus payout will not be eligible or entitled to any in full or pro rata bonus payment. Any
accrued bonus amounts at December 31, 2010 forfeited by individuals due to termination prior to payout will be re-allocated to remaining participants on a pro rata basis.



---

MAXIMUM PAYOUT

The maximum payout will be established each year for that plan year. For 2010 the maximum bonus payout (100% of both the Corporate and
Individual Performance components) will be as follows:



|                                           |  |              
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------
|LEVEL                                      |  | BONUS        
|CEO                                        |  | 50% of Salary
|EVP                                        |  | 35% of Salary
|Sr. VP (reporting directly to the CEO)     |  | 30% of Salary
|Sr. VP (not reporting directly to the CEO) |  | 25% of Salary
|VP (not reporting directly to the CEO)     |  | 20% of Salary
#### Commonwealth *v.*Wanamaker.

*529Argued October 13, 1937.

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

*James Francis Ryan,*Assistant City Solicitor, with him *Joseph*Sharfsin, City Solicitor, and *Charles F. Kelley,*District Attorney, for appellant.

*Daniel G. Murphy,*for appellee, was not heard.

October 27, 1937:

Per Curiam,

Complaint was made before Magistrate McBride by a police officer of the City of Philadelphia charging John Wanamaker with violation of the Traffic and Parking Ordinance, approved October 21, 1936. After *530hearing, the defendant was adjudged guilty and ordered to pay the costs.

An appeal was duly allowed to the Court of Quarter Sessions and a hearing de novo had before Judge Millar who, after full consideration of the evidence, adjudged the defendant not guilty.

The City of Philadelphia appealed to this Court. The appeal will be quashed.

We have held in numerous cases *(Com. v. Preston,*92 Pa. Superior Ct. 159; *Com. v. Benson,*94 Pa. Superior Ct. 10, 15; *Com. v. Bertolette,*101 Pa. Superior Ct. 334; *Com. v. Heiland,*110 Pa. Superior Ct. 188, 167 A. 439; *Com. v. Peacock,*118 Pa. Superior Ct. 168, 171, 179 A. 907) that the Commonwealth may not appeal from a judgment of acquittal, or not guilty, entered by the Court of Quarter Sessions, or a judge thereof, following an appeal to that court from a summary conviction before a justice of the peace, alderman or magistrate. It is not necessary to restate the reasons supporting that ruling. They are fully set forth in the prior decisions cited above. The same rule applies to summary proceedings for violation of a city or borough ordinance, or municipal regulation, where the municipality seeks to appeal from a judgment of not guilty entered by the Court of Quarter Sessions, following an appeal allowed from the judgment of the justice, alderman or magistrate: *Com. v. Ahlgrim,*98 Pa. Superior Ct. 595; *City of Scranton v. Noll,*108 Pa. Superior Ct. 94, 164 A. 850.

The judgment of Judge Millar in this case was not based on any invalidity of the ordinance or other disposition in the nature of a quashing of the conviction on a question of law or discharge in arrest of judgment —see *Com. v. Pahlman,*118 Pa. Superior Ct. 175, 179, 179 A. 910 — , but was a finding, on the evidence, that the defendant had not violated the ordinance.

The Act of May 19, 1874, P. L. 219, which provides, inter alia, that exceptions may be taken by the Com*531monwealth in cases charging nuisance, forcible entry and detainer, and forcible detainer, refers to appeals from trials by jury, on indictments.

Appeal quashed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALEX SAVCHUK,

Case No. 08-14400

Petitioner, Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

DOCTOR LAYDUM,

Respondent,

___________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING AS MOOT THE PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE DECISION REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On October 16, 2008, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of counsel, together

with the financial affidavit evidencing that the petitioner is indigent. On November 26, 2008, the

petitioner followed his petition up with the motion in essence requesting to expedite the

consideration of his initial request.

The petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus

review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995).

“‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a

privilege and not a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting United

States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)); see also Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471

(8th Cir. 1994) (“In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal complexity

of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present

his claims, along with any other relevant factors.”). 

 In this case, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. If,

2:08-cv-14400-DML-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 05/26/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 66
however, the Court determines that counsel should be appointed for the plaintiff in the future, the

Court may revisit the petitioner’s request.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s application for appointment of counsel

[dkt # 3] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for an answer to the filed application

for appointment of counsel [dkt # 7] is DENIED as moot.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 26, 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 May 26, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

2:08-cv-14400-DML-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 05/26/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 67
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 258 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16188]



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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[CFDA No.: 84.133B]


Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; the 
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; Notice 
Inviting Applications for New Awards Under Certain Programs for Fiscal 
Year 1996

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: On June 4, 1996 a notice inviting applications for new awards 
under certain programs for fiscal year 1996 was published in the 
Federal Register at 61 FR 28443. This notice corrects the placement of 
two tables that appear in the June 4, 1996 Federal Register notice.
    On page 28443 a table appears with information related to the 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center Program. On page 28446 a 
table appears with information related to the Research and 
Demonstration Program. The placement of these two tables should be 
reversed so that each table appears directly after the ``Purpose of the 
Program'' section of the notice for each of the programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne Villines, U.S. Department of 
Education, Room 3417 Switzer Building, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20202-2704. Telephone: (202) 205-9141. Individuals who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD 
number at (202) 205-8887.

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 760-76.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 96-16188 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
WIM symepnys roy
ureaborg peseg-Ayisxeaniy
woIsNyouy [INT y

SNOP Se,

Asepuosag-1so0 yf ASIOAIU, purlye,
p S-180g AlSIDAIUN) PURLYEC)

S
NOILdO

[RLISMSAIND
SAdAIIS UBUENEY  puLepyeO

pue uoneonpy
Jo JOoUIS

Apa purpywa7ysur
SO0E-OLr rT)
GOES TA “sAISoYOY
Hey Aapneg stp

SdMIAIRS
URLUNE] PUR LORRONpY Jo ooyDS

ubag JBDOSsSy
SUTBSIAY LAQOY “IG

iQ,

Apes purpyeomoguvuva
£96T-OLE (87)
GOERP “UBBIYSIPY JISZyOOY
eH Sopmed BOPP

suOnISUR. |
Aiepuoaag-qsog Aussi, puryyeQ,
SNOLLAO

40199-11G
BIIGWYURA BIT

JE LOD asuayd “MalAtayUL HOTNSTUIpYt
un JO) joauyuodde ue osuR.ie
0} 40 HORBWLOsur euOnIppE 40,4

“uonojdino jeoyos ysiy Suinsand

1S SpHApAYS Jo Spaau ays jou oF
popuagul jou sau Aoi se suipuny pooyas
ayqad a0; opgidya you ose wessoid
SH} UESOSANOD OY] LON ISL]

“squapnys

ayVApEABsapun 10y pea VON,

1O AvpNGas ay Ie pazpig aav sypasy
saagsouias Jad syrpass 7] Jo unuaTut
w ayy 0} paanbas oak syuapnis
wRadoid paseq-u0yiny & SI SNOLLAO

ssndiues uo sanianor peinos
ut Bunudionsed ut ysosaiur ue Sey y
AUsusatun 46 29]]09 8 OF UOISSILapE
apynfas squaacud yey Apiqesip B SCY
apnpayas:
B MOF{OJ OF AdJIQu oWOS SeY PUP
Apuapusdapur snduiva punose 193 urs
[wap %

SPOIR DIWIOpROR D40W!
SS PATPSUOWAP 2 SRY y

io Quo ut suas

jUaLUYSLIuD feuosiad Joy Sasse]o
StuFaApRaR SuLye] ANOS oO} SJURAN

uayayduos jo sirsyan
Jaya YIM fooyos

2B JO doIFAp R
y parayduios sey

ama jooyas ouqnd
SLLIGOUSS



ayy |
BEBE) O
soph aoud 8 Yas dye ORE]

pouinbad st warasayuy vossod-ar ue
“MOIADL ADT TUTWOD SUOISSIUpE oy) JOY Y

NO vw smmg
uonRoApy Fuiuguo,) oF uoissiupy
soy uonrayddy paraduos v ,,
diiosuns pooyos Yysry
UP] PII9IUT_) UOSID¢|
40 GA] UX aup jo /
Joreutpsoes joddns Aousdr
ur 40 weal duiuue
Joos B Wel; UONRpUaLLiOso!

lone,

d suontsur.

I
Od SNOLLdO
WIPE Uy porsouaiut sjuapnis,

DUIMUOD SUBISSIUUPE oy) 01 TULMO|
ayt aplaoad 0} pou tur
AyL oO} SUOTS!

SNO psu &

SHOT

gs AlSIQatun

uu ARIS SNOLLdO
dy papraaid st pioddns

{winos pur or
day) ot OL SOSSHID r
Ul [JOIN PUR JdIseuias YIBA SassLjo
Aysagarun aeinas Gary vay we ypne Ady |
‘suapmg uonvanpy Buinunuoy Furded
vou se AUSJOATUN Oy) IP payjoau
au wueisoid st) ul simapmg = "yooyos
ysry puosaq = yomasanoo — onuapeor
fay) Sumunuos ur ysosaul ue aary
oye Stuapms Joy popuaiut st SNOLLdO

poazt

Joayas YyBry sore judo; duia si
[Rom Agrtuiid asoys siuapnis oF ayqeymar

BpUNaas WO AALS,

SNOTI'A'O

PURPLE

pur TUITBAL ;RUOHEOOS
wetoid SNOLLIO
iLgof oy ur ayn doy,
IA SIUAPMS

“Sumas o89]]09 v ul uoNvoNpo dtuiapeor
419y) anUNUOD 0} 3]qe az SoNTIgRsIpP py
YIM sitapmis ‘soutAnor uoNveisas pu
SSOULJOM PUR “SIUDAE [LIQOS ‘SUONBZLURTIO
UApNIs ‘sasinog AyssaatuUN IB[NTaL “spoou
Sunray yenpiaipur suapmas yova 0}
ipods sassejd Jo UoONBUIQUIOD P YANO |

“SUI EQRSIP SATIUBES ptt
(ea swspnys soy aouauadxa uonronpoa
Aimpuosas-isod aqeidoidde o8e ‘aarsnypout
Ayn @ apiaoid oy poutisap st Aussoat

HO Ww wraForg SNOLdO FL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN JOSEPH McCARTHY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4690 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 3, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kimberly A. Campbell, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Mark J. O'Brien, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 -0312

_________________ T.M.B., by and through DARCY SAUNDERS, CAPITAL CITY CASE MANAGEMENT, Guardian and Conservator,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST MONT and STATE OF MONTANA,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ On June 5 , 2023 , Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter. In that Notice, Appellant asserted that transcripts had been ordered in accordance with M. R. App. P. 8(3) . Appellant further filed a contemporaneous Notice of Transcripts Deemed Necessary for Appeal. On June 15, 2023 , the District Court record was filed in this Court. To date, no transcripts have been filed. IT IS ORDERED that, on or before December 15 , 2023 , Appellant shall file a report on the status of this appeal. Failure to file a status report within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2023

11/15/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0312
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TDC INTERNATIONAL CORP.

f/k/a G.E. THOMPSON DEVELOPMENT CORP, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cv-14792

Hon. Robert H. Cleland

v.

JAE L. BURNHAM, d/b/a QUICK AND

EASY MOVING, and QUICK AND EASY

MOVING, LLC

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

BRIAN C. GRANT (P71066)

O’Reilly Rancilio, PC

Attorney for Plaintiff

12900 Hall Road, Ste. 350

Sterling Heights, MI 48313

(586) 726-1000

bgrant@orlaw.com

________________________________________/

STATUS UPDATE

Pursuant to this Court’s Order staying the above action due to Defendant Jae L. Burnham 

filing for bankruptcy protection, Plaintiff presents the following as its update with regard to the 

adversary proceedings filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan, 

Case No. 17-80176-swd:

As this Court is aware, Defendant Jae L. Burnham filed for bankruptcy protection which 

automatically stayed the instant action pursuant to 11 U.S.C §362(a). On November 17, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed an adversary proceeding arguing that the debt for contempt of court sanctions

against Defendant is not dischargeable. 

Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 67 filed 10/12/18 PageID.691 Page 1 of 2
J:\TDC International\1 - Jae Burnham\Pleadings\Status Update 10-12-18.doc

On January 9, 2018, the bankruptcy court entered a default against Defendant for failing 

to plead or otherwise defend himself. Following that, on January 12, 2018 Plaintiff filed its 

Motion for Default Judgment to render the debt nondischargeable. However, on March 21, 2018, 

Defendant had counsel appear for a telephonic hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 

Judgment and the bankruptcy court judge denied the motion and allowed Defendant the 

opportunity to present a defense to the allegations.

Following the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, the court set a 

Scheduling Order on May 31, 2018 permitting Plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment 

within 35 days from the date of the Scheduling Order. Based upon this deadline, Plaintiff filed 

its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 2, 2018. As Defendants did not file a response, an 

Opinion and Order was entered by the bankruptcy court on July 18, 2018 that Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment was granted and that the debt at issue in non-dischargeable. Since that 

time, counsel for Defendant has attempted to negotiate a resolution to this matter but to date no 

such resolution has been acceptable. As such, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court reopen this 

lawsuit and order Defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for 

his continued violation of this Court’s previous Orders.

Respectfully Submitted,

O’REILLY RANCILIO, PC

_/s/ Brian C. Grant__________

Brian C. Grant (P71066)

12900 Hall Road, Suite 350

Sterling Heights, MI 48313

(586) 726-1000

bgrant@orlaw.com

Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 67 filed 10/12/18 PageID.692 Page 2 of 2