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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Anthony D. Jones,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10189

Michigan Works Agency, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Acting pro se, Plaintiff Anthony D. Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on January 16,

2009. This Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered

service by the United States Marshal. The United States Marshal attempted to serve Defendants

at the addresses provided by Plaintiff. On March 11, 2009, however, the summonses and

complaints were returned unexecuted as undeliverable as to both Defendants.

On August 26, 2009, this Court issued an “Order to Provide Correct Address for

Defendants,” wherein this Court ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with the correct names,

titles and addresses of Defendant so that the United States Marshal could serve Defendants. That

Order directed Plaintiff to provide the information no later than September 8, 2009, and

expressly cautioned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of

this action as to one or both of these defendants.”

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order and has not provided any of the

requested information. As a result, the United States Marshal is unable to serve Defendants and

this action cannot proceed further. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is

2:09-cv-10189-SFC-DAS Doc # 10 Filed 11/17/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 20
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 17, 2009

I hereby certify that on November 17, 2009, a copy of the foregoing document was served

upon Anthony D. Jones via First Class Mail at the address below:

Anthony D. Jones

1906 Clements, Apt 3L

Detroit, MI 48238

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10189-SFC-DAS Doc # 10 Filed 11/17/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY HALL,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10933

v. DISTRICT JUDGE DAVID M. LAWSON

RAJA, JAYNA SHARPLEY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL

SERVICES, INC., and PRISON 

HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vishnamptet Thyagarajan, M.D.’s

(“Defendant Raja”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 132). Defendant Raja asks the

Court to grant his motion, enter summary judgment in his favor, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

against him. Plaintiff responded on February 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 145). Plaintiff consents to the

dismissal of all claims against Defendant Raja. (Dkt. No. 145; Exhibit A, Affidavit of Plaintiff). 

Accordingly, this Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Defendant Raja’s motion be

GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant Raja alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

(Dkt. No. 64) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific

-1-

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 153 Filed 07/05/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2337
objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise

some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party

might have to this Report and Recommendation. See Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be

served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length

unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address 

each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.

s/Mark A. Randon 

Mark A. Randon

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: July 5, 2012

Certificate of Service

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

date, July 5, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Melody Miles 

Case Manager

-2-

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 153 Filed 07/05/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2338
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Glance, Inc. (the "Company") on  Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,  in  the
capacities and on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in  all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Company.


Date:  November 29, 2007

/s/ Moneca Rayner
---------------------------
Moneca Rayner
President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Director
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3761

To clarify the rules of origin for textile and apparel products from American

Samoa.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 9, 1996

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To clarify the rules of origin for textile and apparel products

from American Samoa.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RULES OF ORIGIN FOR TEXTILE AND APPAREL

4 PRODUCTS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA.

5 Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

6 (19 U.S.C. 3592) shall not affect, for purposes of the cus7 toms laws and administration of quantitative restrictions,

8 the status of textile and apparel products that, under rul9 ings and administrative practices in effect on June 30,

10 1996, would have originated in, or been the growth, prod-
2

•HR 3761 IH

1 uct, or manufacture of, American Samoa. For such pur2 poses, such rulings and administrative practices that were

3 applied on June 30, 1996, to determine the origin of tex4 tile and apparel products of American Samoa shall con5 tinue to apply with respect to such products on and after

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE THOMAS KINKADE COMPANY

f/k/a MEDIA ARTS GROUP, INC., and

RICHARD F. BARNETT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LIGHTHOUSE GALLERIES, LLC, DAVID

WHITE, and NANCY WHITE,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-10757

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on cross motions to vacate and confirm an arbitration

award. For the reasons set forth in an opinion issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the arbitration award is

VACATED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Date: January 27, 2010

copies to:

Dana N. Levitt, Esq.

Steven Z. Cohen, Esq.

2:09-cv-10757-PJD-RSW Doc # 47 Filed 01/27/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1716
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DANE’E MULDREW, 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-10703 

 Plaintiff, Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III 

vs. 

ROBERT HORLOCKER, PATRICK MOORE, 

and the CITY OF WARREN, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED upon by all parties pertinent hereto; 

and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises; that this cause of action be 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs. 

s/Paul W. Broschay s/Raechel M. Badalamenti______

PAUL W. BROSCHAY (P36267) RAECHEL M. BADALAMENTI (P64361) 

 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION; 

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled matter shall be and is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs. 

 s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: September 30, 2010 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on September 30, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Alissa Greer

 Case Manager 

Case 2:09-cv-10703-SJM-MJH ECF No. 29, PageID.274 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN RAGLAND, #191565,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-15253

v. 

DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN

JASON SCHNIEDER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. NO. 144)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or

preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 144). 

Plaintiff is no longer being housed at the Newberry Correctional Facility (Dkt. No. 147,

Pl. Change of address), where he alleges the law library did not possess a number of case law

reporters or was missing certain volumes of the reporters. Therefore, because Plaintiff’s transfer

to another facility renders his claims for injunctive relief moot, see Kenseu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d

172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996), IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED.

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

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.

Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues,

2:08-cv-15253-AC-MAR Doc # 150 Filed 12/06/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1397
but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to

this Report and Recommendation. See Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.

1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). 

Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this

magistrate judge.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length

unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address 

each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.

s/Mark A. Randon 

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: December 6, 2012

Certificate of Service

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

date, December 6, 2012, by electronic and/or first class U.S. mail.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

2:08-cv-15253-AC-MAR Doc # 150 Filed 12/06/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1398
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES BLUNT, 

 Petitioner, 

 Case No. 08-cv-14808 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

 

 Respondent.

_________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Dkt. 39) AND 

PETITIONER’S “MOTION REQUESTING THAT THE COURT GRANT 60(B)(2)(6) 

AND 60(D)(3)” (Dkt. 40)

 Petitioner Charles Blunt is once again before the Court to challenge the disposition of his 

self-representation claim. The Court denied Petitioner’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus on April 5, 2011. See 4/5/2011 Op. & Order (Dkt. 13). The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court’s decision on November 20, 2012. Blunt v. 

Woods, 505 F. App’x 569 (6th Cir. 2012). Petitioner then filed a motion for relief from 

judgment (Dkt. 26). The Court denied that motion, see 10/15/2013 Op. & Order (Dkt. 27), and 

also denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 30), see 6/9/2014 Op. & Order (Dkt. 

31). The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability from the 

Court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment. 10/27/2014 Order (Dkt. 37). 

 In the instant motions, Petitioner again seeks relief under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 60(b) and 60(d). He rehashes arguments concerning the Michigan Court of Appeals’ 

conclusion that, contrary to Petitioner’s representations to the trial court, he had not successfully 

represented himself previously. He argues that the record shows to the contrary. The motions 

4:08-cv-14808-MAG-CEB Doc # 41 Filed 08/26/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 551
2 

provide no persuasive evidence or argument establishing that a fraud was committed upon the 

Court or any other new evidence entitling Petitioner to relief from judgment. 

Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner’s “Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to 

Rule 60(B) & 60(d)(2)(3)” (Dkt. 39) and “Motion Requesting that the Court Grant 60(b)(2)(6) 

and 60(d)(3)” (Dkt. 40). 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 26, 2016 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 26, 2016. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

4:08-cv-14808-MAG-CEB Doc # 41 Filed 08/26/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 552
EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Rakesh Chehil, certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10 QSB of Onelife  Health
     Products Inc.:

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
     quarterly report;

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 registrant 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-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and I 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 us 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 report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
          the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on our evaluation as of
          the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent function):

     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; and

6.   I have  indicated  in this  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 our  most  recent
     evaluation,  including any  corrective  actions with regard to  significant
     deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 11, 2007


By: /s/ Rakesh Chehil
   -----------------------------
   Rakesh Chehil
   Chief Financial Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the Sta te of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Kwadwo Antwi, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle A. Armstrong, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at re-plea and sentencing), rendered December 17, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Michelle A. Armstrong, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at re-plea and sentencing), rendered December 17, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (<i>see Anders v California</i>, 386 US 738 [1967]; <i>People v Saunders</i>, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders</i>, and, upon an independent review of the record, agree that there is no valid appealable issue that could be raised on appeal.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 12, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20006-03

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

CORY HOLLAR,

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.

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 115, PageID.333 Filed 09/22/09 Page 1 of 2
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

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 115, PageID.334 Filed 09/22/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The undersigned officer of Consorteum Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter the "Company") hereby certifies to such officer's knowledge that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
 
 Date:February 22, 2011
/s/ Craig A. FieldingCraig A. Fielding,Chief Executive Officer