alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEONARR MOORE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-10222

v. HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN

NATHAN VANTIFFLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO AMEND

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and to amend concerning

the Court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. First, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks

to cure a defect in his initial pleadings, his motion must be denied given the Court’s dismissal of

his civil rights complaint. The Court may not permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat

summary dismissal. See Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McGore v.

Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Clayton v. United States Dep’t. of

Justice, et al., 136 Fed. Appx. 840, 842 (6th Cir. 2005).

Second, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of his

complaint, he is not entitled to relief. A motion for reconsideration which presents issues

already ruled upon by the district court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be

granted. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 550 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Czajkowski v. Tindall

& Assoc., P.C., 967 F. Supp. 951, 952 (E.D. Mich. 1997). In his motion, Plaintiff addresses the

issue of prosecutorial immunity. The Court, however, did not dismiss this case on immunity

2:09-cv-10222-GER-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 02/26/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 28
2

grounds. Rather, the Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief based upon Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a

palpable defect by which the Court has been misled or his burden of showing that a different

disposition must result from a correction thereof as required by Local Rule 7.1(g)(3). His civil

rights complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. This case is

closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: February 26, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

February 26, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10222-GER-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 02/26/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WEATHER UNDERGROUND, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NAVIGATION CATALYST SYSTEMS, INC., 

et al.,

Defendant(s).

/

Civil Action No. 09-10756

District Judge Marianne O. Battani

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

NOTICE OF HEARING

The District Judge having entered an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.636 (b)(1)(A)

referring the following motion to United States Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan for

hearing and decision: 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Disclosure and for Sanctions (#29), filed January 11,

2010,

The motion is set for hearing on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

before the Magistrate Judge at U.S. Courthouse, 200 East Liberty Street, Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48104. Counsel may bring an appropriate order granting or denying the motion

to the hearing.

The response to the motion has been filed. A separate copy of the response) shall

be mailed or hand delivered to the Magistrate Judge. 

**THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER NOTICE OF THESE DATES

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS

If the motion addresses discovery issues, counsel shall comply with Paragraphs A

through D.

A. Counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Local Court Rule 37.1.

B. If counsel are unable to resolve their differences, the movant shall prepare

a joint list entitled "List of Unresolved Issues" as to the issues which remain in dispute. 

The List should be delivered or faxed directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge

Virginia M. Morgan and is not to be filed with the Court . The List is due on or before

12:00 NOON February 5, 2010. (Mailed, hand-delivered, or faxed (734) 741-2483.)

Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al Doc. 35

Dockets.Justia.com
C. The List of Unresolved Issues shall be one document and include the

following:

1. Identification of each and every issue which remains in dispute, including any

interrogatories and answers. The interrogatories and answers must be attached

or copied into the list;

2. The respective positions of each party on every issue which remains in

dispute;

3. Citations of authority that support the respective positions of each

party on every issue which remains in dispute.

4. The List of Unresolved Issues shall not incorporate by reference

disputed interrogatories, requests for production, or requests to

admit.

D. In the event that all issues are resolved, the movant shall prepare a

proposed Stipulation and Order disposing of the motion. The proposed Stipulation and

Order shall be delivered to Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan's chambers by the date

specified in Paragraph B.

Dated: January 28, 2010 s/ Jane Johnson

Case Manager

(734) 741-2378

Copies served electronically and/or by ordinary mail on this date on the counsel of record.
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 Diamond Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vince Leitao, Chief Executive 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 17th day of May, 2010.





VINCE LEITAO

Vince Leitao

Chief Executive Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3686

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit the licensing

of a permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility outside the

50 States or the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 20, 1996

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA,

Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr. FRAZER, and Mr. MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit

the licensing of a permanent or interim nuclear waste

storage facility outside the 50 States or the District

of Columbia, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO LICENSE NU4 CLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES.

5 Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42

6 U.S.C. 10121 et seq.) is amended by inserting after sec7 tion 101 the following:
2

•HR 3686 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 102. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO LICENSE, CON2 STRUCT, OR OPERATE NUCLEAR WASTE

3 STORAGE FACILITIES.

4 ‘‘The Commission shall not have authority, under this

5 Act or any other law, to issue a license for, and it shall

6 be unlawful for any person to construct or operate, a facil7 ity or repository for interim or permanent storage of low8 level radioactive waste, high-level radioactive waste, or

9 spent nuclear fuel at a place outside 1 of the 50 States

10 or the District of Columbia.’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

 

 

I, Calli R. Bucci, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2017 (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 Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. 

 

 

 

 

 

*/s/ Calli R. Bucci* 

Calli R. Bucci 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

August 29, 2018 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. and will be retained by Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20006-02

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

BRADLEY RIGG

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On November 18, 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

November 18, 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 # 156 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 454
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: November 18, 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 Rod O’Farrell, and served on District Judge Ludington

in the traditional manner.

Date: November 18, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 156 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 455
EX-4.7



 Exhibit 4.7 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT 

OF 
 MARATHON PETROLEUM
LOGISTICS OPERATIONS LLC 
 This Amendment No. 1, dated as of October 29, 2012 (this “Amendment”), to the Limited
Liability Company Agreement of Marathon Petroleum Logistics Operations LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), dated as of March 19, 2012 (the “Agreement”), is being adopted pursuant to and in accordance
with the provisions of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. C. § 18-101, et seq.) (the “Act”), and the Agreement. Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the respective meanings set
forth in the Agreement. 
 W I T N E S S E T H 

WHEREAS, the Company was heretofore formed as a limited liability company under the Act and is currently governed by the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the undersigned is the sole member of the Company and desires to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned does hereby amend the Agreement as follows and intends such amendment to be effective as of May 16, 2012:

 1. The name of the Company is MPLX Operations LLC and all references in the Agreement to Marathon Petroleum Logistics Operations LLC are
hereby replaced with MPLX Operations LLC. 
 2. This Amendment shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the party hereto and
all other parties to the Agreement and their respective successors and assigns. 
 3. Except as hereby amended, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. 
 4. This Amendment shall be governed by, and interpreted in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, all
rights and remedies being governed by such laws without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. 
 5. Each provision of this Amendment
shall be considered severable, and if for any reason any provision or provisions herein are determined to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal under any existing or future law, such invalidity, unenforceability or illegality shall not impair the
operation of or affect those portions of this Amendment that are valid, enforceable and legal. 
 6. This Amendment may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 

  
 -1- 








 Exhibit 4.7 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. 

 

	
	MPL INVESTMENT LLC
	Member
	
	 /s/ Garry L. Peiffer

	Garry L. Peiffer
	Member Representative
Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al Doc. 13

Dockets.Justia.com
#### STATE of Missouri, ex rel. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Relator, v. The Honorable Ronald R. McKENZIE, Judge of the Circuit Court of Marion County, Missouri, 10th Judicial Circuit, Respondent.

No. 71679.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Writ Division Two.

Dee. 24, 1996.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, James A. Chenault, III, Special Assistant, Attorney General, Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for relator.

Charles E. Stine, Jr., Hannibal, for respondent.

*591Before GERALD M. SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and CRANE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Relator has filed a petition for writ of prohibition against Respondent alleging that he was without jurisdiction to grant a stay of the revocation of driving privileges of Clifford A. Mahsman pending disposition of Mahsman’s appeal of that revocation. Respondent was afforded an opportunity to file suggestions in opposition to the writ, but did not do so.

The facts and law are clear. In the interest of justice as permitted by Rule 84.24, we dispense with a preliminary order, answer, further briefing and oral argument and issue a peremptory writ of prohibition.

Mahsman was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Marion County on September 15, 1996. His breath analysis revealed a blood alcohol content of .253%. His driving record reflected prior alcohol-related enforcement contacts within the preceding five years. Relator revoked his driving privileges pursuant to § 302.525, RSMo 1994. This revocation was upheld after an administrative hearing. On November 21, 1996, Mahs-man filed a petition to review revocation of driver’s license in the circuit court of Marion County. On the same day he filed an application for stay order which was granted that day. Relator’s application for writ followed.

§ 302.535, RSMo 1994 provides for a trial de novo in the circuit court of the administrative decision revoking a driver’s license. Subparagraph 2 of that section provides: “The filing of a petition for trial de novo shall not result in a stay of the suspension or revocation order.” In *State ex rel. King v. Kinder,*690 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. banc 1985) the court interpreted the quoted language as denying the circuit court jurisdiction to issue a stay order in a revocation case. That is still the law of this state. Respondent was without jurisdiction to issue the stay order.

Peremptory writ is ordered issued. Respondent is directed to vacate stay order previously issued in *Mahsman v. Director of Revenue,*Case No. CV396-543CC, in the Circuit Court of Marion County.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 371

To prohibit a State from imposing an income tax on the pension income

of individuals who are not residents or domiciliaries of that State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. STUMP (for himself and Mrs. VUCANOVICH) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit a State from imposing an income tax on the

pension income of individuals who are not residents or

domiciliaries of that State.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON STATE TAXATION OF PENSION

4 INCOME.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 4 of title 4 of the United

6 States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the

7 following new section:
2

•HR 371 IH

1 ‘‘§ 114. Limitation on State income taxation of pen2 sion income

3 ‘‘(a) No State may impose an income tax (as defined

4 in section 110(c)) on the pension income of any individual

5 who is not a resident or domiciliary of such State.

6 ‘‘(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘State’

7 includes any political subdivision of a State, the District

8 of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.’’.

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

10 for such chapter 4 is amended by adding at the end there11 of the following new item:

‘‘114. Limitation on State income taxation of pension income.’’

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

14 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
namg_ex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2


 





 




  





1











  







 





 




  





2











  









 





 





  





3











  







 





 





  





4











  







 





 





  





5











  







 





 





  





6











  







 





















 


7
EXHIBIT
32.1











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





I,
Robert Kremer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Michael Lambert, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Michael Lambert, Inc.





Date:  April  14,
2009





By:
      /s/ Robert
      KremerRobert
      Kremer,Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41279 Conference Calendar

CHARLES W. CALVERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JESSIE CRAVEN; HUEL FONTENOT, Sheriff; UNKNOWN DUVAL, Officer; UNKNOWN STEPHENSON, Officer; EASTER ADAMS, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CV-528

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1998
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles W. Calverly, Texas inmate # 630407, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. He argues that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from injury inflicted by another prisoner. Calverly’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.No. 96-41279 -2- We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error in the magistrate judge’s dismissal of Calverly’s claim against Lieutenant Adams. See Calverly v. Orange County Jail, et al. , No. 1:94-CV-528 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 1996). Calverly has abandoned the claims he raised in the district court against Officers Duval and Stephenson and against inmate Craven by failing to argue error in the district court’s reasons for dismissing his claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (when appellant fails to identify any error in the district court's analysis, it is as if appellant had not appealed that judgment). Calverly has abandoned his housing claim and the claims that he raised against the Orange County Jail and Sheriff Fontenot by failing to raise them in this court. See Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748 (the court will not raise and discuss legal issues that the appellant has failed to assert). Calverly’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit. There is no Sixth Amendment right to effective representation in civil cases. Sanchez v. United States Postal Serv. , 785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. It is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Calverly is warned that future frivolous appeals will invite the imposition of sanctions. Calverly should review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous arguments.No. 96-41279 -3- APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.