alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16550]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation      Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire 
or control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.25 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.25) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for processing, it will 
also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the 
question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 
of the BHC Act, including whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C. 1843). Any request for a hearing 
on this question must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a 
written presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, 
identifying specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, 
summarizing the evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and 
indicating how the party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of 
the proposal.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than July 12, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
    1. Marshall & Illsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; to acquire 
EastPoint Technology, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire, and thereby engage 
in operating a data processing company, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(7) 
of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 24, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-16550 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-06

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

ENRIQUE FARIAS-VALENCIA,

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 # 96 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 289
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 Elias Escobedo, 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 # 96 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 290
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

The Estate of RANDEN HARVEY 

and JACKIE GREEN,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 08-14916

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN

PANKIEWICZ, M.D.

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan, on October 7, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80, asserting medical malpractice by doctors at the

Ann Arbor Veterans Administration Medical Center allegedly resulting in the death of

Randen Harvey. Presently before the Court is the Government’s motion in limine to

exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ medical expert, Dr. John Pankiewicz, filed pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(i) and 37(c)(1) on August 17, 2009. The

motion has been fully briefed and, on October 1, 2009, this Court held a motion hearing. 

For the reasons set forth on the record at the motion hearing,

2:08-cv-14916-PJD-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/07/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 634
2

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude Dr. Pankiewicz’

testimony is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Thomas F. Campbell, Esq.

Kristina L. Derro, Esq.

Steven P. Croley, Esq.

2:08-cv-14916-PJD-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/07/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 635
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Francisco Javier SANCHEZ-LUNA, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-50557. D.C. No. CR-02-00218-FMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 7, 2003.

Before SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

MEMORANDUM**

The district court departed downward five levels when it imposed sentence on Francisco Javier Sanchez-Luna. The basis for the departure was Sanchez-Luna’s cultural assimilation into the United States. The government appeals the departure. Because the facts of Sanchez-Luna’s assimilation are insufficiently extraordinary to take his case outside the heartland of the sentencing guidelines, the district court abused its discretion when it granted the downward departure based on cultural assimilation.1

*746“[C]ultural assimilation is a permissible ground for departure under the Sentencing Guidelines” *United States v. Lipman,*133 F.3d 726, 728 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), but it was not an appropriate ground for departure based on the facts of this case. Sanchez-Luna was convicted of illegal reentry following a prior deportation, an offense which necessarily takes into account his previous presence in this country. A typical illegal reentry defendant will have spent a good amount of time in the United States and, upon deportation, will leave behind significant relationships. Sanchez-Luna has pointed to no unusual ties that justify a downward departure in his case.

Sanchez-Luna lived and worked in Mexico for four years between reentries. While he was there, he fathered two children who reside in Mexico with their mother. Although Sanchez Luna’s other child and his father and siblings reside in America, and although he spent much of his life and received his schooling here, his circumstances are insufficiently unusual to justify a downward departure.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The government argues that the recently-enacted Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (the "PROTECT Act”), Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat, 650 (Apr. 30, 2003), requires that we review the district court's downward departure not for an abuse of discretion, *see Koon v. United States,*518 U.S. 81, 98-100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d *746392 (1996), but *de novo. See*18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2003). Because we conclude that the district court erred under the abuse of discretion standard, we need not decide whether the PROTECT Act applies to this appeal.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeuLion, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of theundersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.(section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to the best of his or her knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Nancy Li |                          |
|--------------|-------------------------------|
| Name:        | Nancy Li                      |   |
| Title:       | Chief Executive Officer       |   |
|         | (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
| Date:        | November 10, 2009        |   |

 

 
| /s/ Arthur J. McCarthy |                          |
|------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Name:                  | Arthur J. McCarthy            |   |
| Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer       |   |
|                   | (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
| Date:                  | November 10, 2009        |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geostar Mineral Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Andriy Protskiv, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

| | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 11th day of September, 2007.

ANDRIY PROTSKIVAndriy ProtskivChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








































---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RHE-TECH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

OWENS CORNING,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-14104

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on December 18, 2008.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default and

motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth on the record at a hearing held December 17,

2008,

IT IS ORDERED, that the entry of default is hereby set aside upon condition that

Defendant’s counsel pay Plaintiff’s counsel the sum of $500 within ten (10) days of the

date of this Order;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that:

(1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(2) Plaintiff shall amend the complaint on or before January 15, 2009; and
2

(3) upon receipt of the amended complaint, Defendant may file a renewed motion to

dismiss. If Defendant does not intend to file a renewed motion to dismiss, it shall so

notify the Court and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the amended

complaint;

(4) If Defendant files a renewed motion to dismiss, Plaintiff may file a response.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to:

Gary K. August

Matthew G. McNaughton

Thomas P. Dillon

Nathan A. Hall

Stefanie E. Deller
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16638]


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


CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Information Collection Activity Proposed

AGENCY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).

ACTION: Correction to information collection activity proposed.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the Notice of 60-Day 
Review and Comment on National Service Trust Interest Accrual Form 
which was published Monday, June 10, 1996, Vol. 61. No. 112, page 
29359.

DATES: CNCS will consider comments on the proposed collection of 
information to be used by AmeriCorps members enrolled in national 
service to request interest accural information for his or her term of 
service on qualified student loans from lending organizations, and 
payment of such interest by the Corporation to lending institutions for 
individuals enrolled in national service who were granted forbearance 
under the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As published, the notice omitted the need 
for each proposed collection of information to solicit comments to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of 
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
to be collected: and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses.
Gary Kowalczyk,
Acting Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16638 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-281-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 25, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 19, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be 
effective on July 1, 1996:

Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 6A
Second Revised Sheet No. 6B
Third Revised Sheet No. 204
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 205

    WNG states that this filing is being made pursuant to part 154 of 
the Commission's regulations and as contemplated in WNG's abandonment 
of facilities filing in Docket No. CP94-196. In that filing WNG stated 
that tariff sheets reflecting the abandonment would be filed upon the 
Commission's issuance of an order approving the abandonment.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service list maintained by the Commission in Docket No. 
CP94-196 and on all jurisdictional customers and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Any person wishing 
to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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 
proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16630 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Harold L. FERRY, Appellant, v. KELLY WATERPROOFING, Respondent, and Missouri State Treasurer, Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. WD 47980.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 8, 1994.

Harold L. Ferry, appellant pro se.

Brian J. Fowler, Evans & Dixon, Kansas City, for respondent Kelly Waterproofing.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Reginald Harrington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent Second Injury Fund.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a workers’ compensation award.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BEATRIX ELIZABETH CANTU WYNN,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

 08-CV-14879

vs.

 PAUL D. BORMAN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

On November 19, 2009, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. No objections

have been filed and the time to do so has expired. The Court has had an opportunity to fully review

this matter and finds that Magistrate Judge Whalen has reached the proper conclusions for the proper

reasons. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Whalen’s R&R dated November 19, 2009, is

accepted and adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry

9] is denied.

2:08-cv-14879-PDB-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 12/14/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 768
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry

14] is granted.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 14, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

December 14, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14879-PDB-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 12/14/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 769
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMUEL PEARSON, 

Petitioner,

Case Number 08-14422 

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

RAYMOND BOOKER,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

August 11, 2011 opinion and order dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus.

A motion for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1) when the

moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the parties, and (3) that

correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A

“palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep’t

of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted). The

petitioner has not presented any evidence of a palpable defect that misled the Court. Instead, the

petitioner’s motion merely revisits issues already decided by the Court. Therefore, the Court will

deny the motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [dkt. #46] is

DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 2, 2011
-2-

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 September 2, 2011.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL