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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK ALLEN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11281

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 30)

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections

(“MDOC”), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendant violated his

constitutional rights. On November 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed this motion. This motion was referred

to the undersigned for hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). For the

following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff provide this Court with a proposed amended

complaint (with proposed changes clearly marked).

Opinion

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading by leave of the

court and the court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Appropriate factors to

consider in determining whether to permit an amendment include: “the delay in filing, the lack of

notice to the opposing party, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies

-1-

2:09-cv-11281-DML-MAR Doc # 51 Filed 12/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 431
by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.”

Perkins v. Am. Elec. Power Fuel Supply, Inc., 246 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2001). However,

because Plaintiff failed to submit a copy of his proposed amended complaint with his motion in

accordance with E.D. MICH. L R 15.1, or fully explain in his motion how he wishes to amend

his complaint, the undersigned cannot make a determination on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

amend. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to submit his proposed amended complaint within 1

twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order so that the Court may determine whether the

proposed amendment(s) can be allowed. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint shall be clearly

marked to delineate where changes have been proposed to be made from the original

complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit a pleading titled “proposed

amended complaint” within twenty-one days of the date of this order, with all proposed changes

clearly delineated, or this motion will be deemed dismissed.

s/Mark A. Randon 

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: December 1, 2009

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the parties of record on this

date, December 1, 2009, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

Reference to a (proposed) amended complaint is made in Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 1

amend but does not appear as a docket entry. 

-2-

2:09-cv-11281-DML-MAR Doc # 51 Filed 12/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 432
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20006-05

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

JOSEPH JONES,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On September 21, 2009, this case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on

September 21, 2009. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s

consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by

Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense(s) to which Defendant pleaded guilty is(are) supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the

preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 116 Filed 09/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 335
2

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, Defendant be adjudged guilty and sentence be 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: September 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 116 Filed 09/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 336
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                        Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder
of CIT Group Inc.


We have examined management's assertion about The CIT Group/Sales Financing,
Inc.'s (the "Company's"), a wholly owned subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.,
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, as included in the
accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I). Management is responsible for
the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2001, except as noted in Exhibit I, is fairly stated, in all material
respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, NY
March 29, 2002
H. Res. 895 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 7, 2009. 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

lives of the brave soldiers and civilians of the United States 

Army who died or were wounded in the tragic attack of November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas. The American people 

share the pain and grief of this tragic loss. Our thoughts and 

prayers will continue to be with the families of those who 

were so unfortunately taken from them. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Order entered April 13, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01514-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.S.K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JD-12-01231

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s April 11, 2016 motion requesting a sixty-day extension of 

time to file a brief. Appellant states she needs additional time because she is trying to locate the 

1976 adoption case file and reporter’s record from the adoption hearing. An appellate court

considers and weighs all evidence that was before the trial court. See Metroplex Mailing Servs., 

LLC v. RR Donnelley & Sons Co., 410 S.W.3d 889, 898 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). 

Because these documents appellant is searching for were not before the trial court, we DENY

appellant’s motion.

On the Court’s own motion, we ORDER appellant to file a brief by MAY 13, 2016.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### James FENNER, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. PULITZER PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

No. 62915.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 16, 1993.

David S. Ware, St. Louis, for appellant.

John J. Larsen, Jr., St. Louis, for respondent.

J. Patrick Chassaing, Keith K. Cheung, St. Louis, for Treasurer of Mo. as custodian of the Second Injury Fund.

Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE and CRAHAN, JJ. '

*956
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

These appeals arise out of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s award in a worker’s compensation claim. Both the claimant, James Fenner, and the employer, Pulitzer Publishing Company, appeal from the Commission’s award. These appeals were consolidated into this action. We affirm the Commission’s award.

An opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prec-edential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only. This memorandum sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed according to Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,443)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,154
<PP&E>                                          86,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,615)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 716,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,377
<BONDS>                                        342,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           85,362
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   716,613
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,495<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,787
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,647)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,275)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,031)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (540.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (540.77)
<FN>
<F1>Comprised of net revenues (gross revenues net of agency commissions).
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16277]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
[RI 95-4]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Reclearance of 
Information Collection

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for reclearance of an information collection. RI 95-4, 
Marital Information Required of Refund Applicants, is used by OPM to 
pay refunds of retirement contributions. OPM must know about the 
applicant's marital status and whether any spouse and any former 
spouses have been informed of the proposed refund. All applicants for 
refund must respond.
    Approximately 5,000 RI 95-4 forms are completed annually. Each form 
takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden 
is 2,500 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cda7a0abacbfbfa2a38da0aca4a1e3a2bda0e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd97909b9c8f8f9293bd909c9491d3928d90d39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before July 
29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

Barbara Yearwood, Acting Chief, FERS Division, Retirement and Insurance 
Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Streeet, NW., Room 
4429, Washington, DC 20415-0001
    and
Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW., Room 3002, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: 
Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-16277 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TOMMY HALL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAJA, et aI., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 


FILED 

CLERK/SOFF/el: 

JAN 12 2012 

U,S.DIST

EASTeRNR~/CT COURT 

HIGAN 

Case No. 09-10933 

Honorable David M. Lawson 

Magistrate Judge Mark Randon 

Shirley J. Burgoyne (Pl1409) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

206 Miller 

Ann Arbor, MI 48lO4 

(734) 665-4068 or (734) 355-3999 

Michael R. Dean (P71333) 

Michigan Department ofAttorney General 

Attorneys for MDOC Defendants 

P.O. Box 30217 

Lansing, MI 48909 

(517) 335-7021 

Randall A. Juip (P58538) 

Brian J. Richtarcik (P49390) 

Anthony D. Pignotti (P71lO0) 

The Juip Richtarcik Law Firm 

Attorneys for Defendants, Correctional 

Medical Services, Inc. and Vishnampet 

Thyagarajan, M.D., Only 

The Penobscot Building 

645 Griswold, Suite 3466 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 859-5900 

Ronald W. Chapman (P37603) 


Chapman and Associates, P.C. 


Attorneys for Defendants, Prison Health 


Services, Inc. and Vishnampet Thyagarajan, 


M.D. 

40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 120 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 644-6326 

PROTECTIVE ORDER PERMITTING DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL 

This matter having corne before this Court on Defendants' Ex Parte Motion For 

Protective Order To File Documents Under Seal, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in 

the premises; 

NOW, THEREFORE, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the original and any copies of Plaintiffs medical and 

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 140 Filed 01/12/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2156
institutional records filed by Defendants with this Court in the above-captioned case be placed 

under seal and not incorporated into the regular record of this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Ex Parte Motion For Protective Order To 

File Documents Under Seal is GRANTED, and the medical and institutional records filed under 

seal pursuant to this Order shall remain under seal until further 

Date: _'--I-L_J_~,"--/_fL-__ Honorable Mark Randon 

United States Magistrate Judge 

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 140 Filed 01/12/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2157
Exhibit
31.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
G. Brent Backman, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, certify
that:





1.   I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q;





2.   Based
on my knowledge, this 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;





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





4.   I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-a5(e)) for the
issuer and have;





(a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure the material
information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation





(c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the issuer's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's
board of directors (or person performing the equivalent functions);





(a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the issuer's ability to record, process summarize and report
financial information; and





(b)  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls over financial
reporting.





Date:  AUGUST
19, 2008


/s/ G. Brent
Backman


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer
**Exhibit 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OFSPHERION CORPORATION**

Following is a listof the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Spherion Corporation, a Delawarecorporation. Certain inactive subsidiaries have been excluded from the listbelow as such subsidiaries, when considered in the aggregate as one subsidiary,would not constitute a “significant subsidiary.”  All active subsidiaries do business undertheir corporate name listed below, or close derivatives thereof, except whereindicated otherwise:
| 3736008 Canada Inc.†                      | Canada         |
|------------------------------------------------|----------------|
| 6063721 Canada Inc.                            | Canada         |
| Comtex Information  Systems, Inc.         | Delaware       |
| Human Resource Capital Group  Inc.             | Canada         |
| NorCross Holdings LLC                     | Delaware       |
| NorCross Teleservices L.P.                     | Delaware       |
| Norrell Corporation                       | Delaware       |
| Norrell Services, Ltd                     | Canada         |
| Spherion Assessment Inc.                       | North Carolina |
| Spherion Atlantic Enterprises  LLC*       | Delaware       |
| Spherion Atlantic Resources  LLC*         | Delaware       |
| Spherion Atlantic Workforce  LLC*†        | Delaware       |
| Spherion (Europe) Inc.                         | Delaware       |
| Spherion Financial  Corporation           | Delaware       |
| Spherion Government Services  LLC              | Delaware       |
| Spherion Operations Inc.                       | Delaware       |
| Spherion Pacific Enterprises  LLC*†  | Delaware       |
| Spherion Pacific Resources  LLC*†    | Delaware       |
| Spherion Pacific Workforce  LLC*†    | Delaware       |
| Spherion Technology (UK)  Limited         | United Kingdom |
| Spherion U.S. Inc.                             | Florida        |
| Spherion Worldwide Holding B.V.                | Netherlands    |

----

*                    Also dobusiness as:

Spherion—Staffing Services

Spherion—ProfessionalServices

Spherion—Human ResourceConsulting

Norrell

Bossler Hix

†                    Merged out ofexistence effective January 1, 2007

----