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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Adil Shafi,

Counterclaim Plaintiff/

Third Party Plaintiff,

Case No: 09-10454

vs Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Magistrate Judge Michelson

Braintech, Inc. and

Frederick Weidinger,

Counterclaim Defendants/

Third Party Defendants,

________________________________/

SCHEDULING ORDER (PHASE II)

PLEASE DOCKET IMMEDIATELY:

NO FURTHER NOTICE OF THESE DATES WILL BE SENT

1. Setting Date for filing of Final Pretrial Order;

2. Setting date of Final Pretrial Conference;

3. Setting Trial date;

4. Providing for content of Final Pretrial Order and describing

material to be prepared and to be made available to the 

Court and counsel; and

5. Setting forth brief format requirements.

1. Deadline for filing Joint Pretrial Order: 6/3/11 .

2. *Deadline for filing all other Motions in Limine: 6/3/11 .

3. *Deadline for filing Responses to Motions in Limine: 6/10/11 . 

4. Final Pretrial Conference Date and Time: 6/17/11 at 10:00 am .

Trial counsel must be present at the Final Pretrial Conference.

5. Hearing on Motions in Limine: 6/17/11 at 10:00 am .

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 101 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 2
2

6. Trial date and time: 6/28/11-7/1/11 at 9:00 .

Jury Trial X 

Non Jury Trial 

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:

1. The parties may not stipulate to extend any dates.

2. Briefing Schedule: Unless specifically addressed in this Order, the local court rules

apply for filing responses and replies to motions.

3. All briefs must comply strictly with LR 7.1 (Statement of Issues, Statement of

Controlling/Most Appropriate Authority), and, in addition, must contain a Table of

Contents, an Index of Authorities and an Index of Exhibits. The Exhibits must be tabbed.

Unpublished cases should be attached. Counsel are to highlight relevant portions of

exhibits to which the Court’s attention should be directed. Furthermore, the format

requirements as set forth in LR 5.1 must be strictly adhered to. A courtesy copy of all

motions and briefs must be submitted directly to Judge Roberts’ chambers.

4. Motion hearings: Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(e)(2), the Court will decide motions on the briefs

filed, UNLESS the Court issues a Notice of Motion Hearing.

5. Bench trials: Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law are to be submitted on the first

day of trial.

* Motions in Limine can be filed in Bench Trials only with leave of court.

THE ABOVE CONSTITUTES AN ORDER OF THIS COURT.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Dated: 3/30/11 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

(Revised: 12/10)

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Document 101 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 2
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-296-005]

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

June 28, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 25, 1996, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, with the 
proposed effective date of March 14, 1996:

Third Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 253.

    WNG states that it made a filing on June 17, 1996 in compliance 
with Commission order issued May 17, 1996 in Docket No. RP95-296-002. 
On Sheet No. 253 of that filing the phrase ``to WNG'' was inadvertently 
omitted. WNG states that the instant filing is being made to correct 
this omission.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission in the docket 
referenced above and on all jurisdictional customers and interested 
state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.W., 
Washington DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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. 96-17085 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1163 

To add 1 member with aviation safety expertise to the Federal Aviation 

Administration Management Advisory Council. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2009 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To add 1 member with aviation safety expertise to the Federal Aviation Administration Management Advisory 

Council. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL. 

4 Section 106(p)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

7 by striking ‘‘13 members’’ and inserting ‘‘14 mem8 bers’’; and 

9 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘10 mem10 bers representing aviation interests’’ and inserting 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1163 IS

1 ‘‘11 members representing aviation interests, includ2 ing at least 1 member specifically representing avia3 tion safety interests’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the periodic report of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dean R. Marks, Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
     The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





Date:
      May 17, 2010
            /s/
      Dean R. MarksDean
      R. MarksChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-106505, 333-108651 and 333-98295 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-65394,
333-52968, 333-32400, 333-89495, 333-89497 and 333-45375) of Corixa Corporation
and in the related Prospectuses, as applicable, of Corixa Corporation of our
reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Corixa Corporation, Corixa Corporation management's assessment of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Corixa
Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2004.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 15, 2005
#### Leda GOLDENBERG, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Stuart GOLDENBERG, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68287.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 7, 1996.

Rosenblum, Goldenhersh, Silverstein & Zafft, P.C., Merle L. Silverstein; Sanford J. Boxerman, Clayton, for appellant.

Eisen, Gillespie & Hilton, Lawrence G. Gillespie, Webster Groves, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from the portions of the dissolution decree denying her request for maintenance. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL GARRISON,

GEORGE DAVIS,

ERNIE JONES and

RONALD WORDEN,

Plaintiffs, CASE NO: 09-10231

vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

MICHIGAN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

PATRICIA CARUSO,

MICHAEL MARTIN and

JULIUS O. CURLING,

Defendants.

/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF GARRISON’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

This order is entered under the authority given to this Magistrate

Judge in an Order of Reference issued by District Judge Zatkoff

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Plaintiff Garrison has filed a motion seeking immediate consideration of his request for

a temporary restraining order. The court may only issue a temporary restraining order

without notice to the adverse party if a plaintiff is in danger of suffering immediate and

irreparable injury, loss, or damage. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). Plaintiff’s allegations fail to meet

this standard, and therefore the Court will address the issue once the responses are received

from Defendants, those responses being due by April 10, 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiff

Garrison’s motion for immediate consideration is DENIED.

Review of this order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P. 72, and E.D.

Mich. LR 72.1(d). 

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: March 26, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 71
CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed this date, and served by first

class mail on Michael Garrison, #237608, West Shoreline Correctional Facility, 2500 S.

Sheridan Dr., Muskegon Heights, MI, 49444; on George Davis, #165673, Ernie Jones,

#375655, and Ronald Worden, #235201, at Deerfield Correctional Facility, 1755 Harwood

Rd., Ionia, MI, 48846-9457.

Date: March 26, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 03/26/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 72
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE POTTS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-36020

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00701-HA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2009

Portland, Oregon

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

When the Commissioner conducts a continuing disability review to

determine if a claimant is still eligible to receive disability benefits, the

Commissioner must determine whether there has been “any decrease in the medical

severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) which was present at the time of the

FILED

NOV 18 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
most recent favorable medical decision that [the claimant was] disabled or

continued to be disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(b)(1), (f)(3). Here, the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) incorrectly used the February 1995 decision

finding Potts to be disabled as the comparison point for improvement. As the

Commissioner conceded in briefing and in oral argument, the correct comparison

point was Potts’ continuing disability review in March 2000. Because the ALJ’s

findings were based on legal error, we reverse the district court’s judgment and

remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings

consistent with this memoradum. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir.

1996). Upon remand, Potts’ benefits may be reinstated consistent with the

provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1597a(i)(6).

REVERSED and REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH HARRIS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Richard B. Kellam, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-25-NN, CA-95-78-4)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Harris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States

v. Harris, Nos. CR-93-25-WN; CA-95-78-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          Independent Auditor's Consent


The Board of Directors
The CIT Group, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part
of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-32263) of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, National Association and The Chase Manhattan Bank of our report dated
March 1, 2001 relating to management's assertion about The CIT Group/Sales
Financing, Inc. and The CIT Group/Consumer Finance, Inc.'s 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, 2000, which reports appears as Exhibit 99.3 of this
Form 10-K.

/s/ KPMG LLP
---------------------------
KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 30, 2001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-51116

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

WILLIAM IBIANSKI,

Defendant,

v.

THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS NA, 

INCORPORATED PENSION PLAN 

COMMITTEE,

Garnishee.

______________________________________ /

ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY VICTIM’S MOTION TO DIRECT

GARNISHEE TO PAY PORTION OF MONTHLY PENSION BENEFITS

This matter is before the Court on ThyssenKrupp Materials NA, Inc.’s (ThyssenKrupp)

motion to direct the garnishee to pay twenty-five percent of the defendant’s monthly pension

benefits to ThyssenKrupp in partial satisfaction of the defendant’s court-ordered restitution. William

Ibianski pleaded guilty to embezzling from his former employer, Copper and Brass Sales, Inc., and

was ordered to pay $244,248.29 in restitution to Copper and Brass Sales, Inc. United States v.

Ibianski, No. 07-20632 (Oct. 23, 2008) (judgment). He was also ordered to pay $871,854.44 in

restitution to Zurich American Insurance Company. There has been no response to ThyssenKrupp’s

motion filed, and the time for doing so has elapsed. After due consideration, the Court will deny the

motion. ThyssenKrupp is not one of the two victims in the judgment and commitment, and the

2:08-mc-51116-DML-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 05/26/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 131
-2-

Court may not order payment of restitution to non-victims of the offense of conviction. United

States v. Wolf, 90 F.3d 191, 194 (7th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that ThyssenKrupp Materials NA, Inc.’s motion to direct

garnishee to pay portion of monthly pension benefits [dkt. # 15] is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 26, 2011

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, 2011.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:08-mc-51116-DML-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 05/26/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 132
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VB Trade, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ray Primack,
Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the operation of the
Company.


/s/ Ray Primack
----------------------------------------------
Ray Primack
Principal Financial Officer
May 3, 2007


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.01    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 Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfonso Knoll, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Alfonso Knoll By: Alfonso Knoll Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: May 19, 2011  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Auditors report of Amisano Hanson dated March 19, 1998 for years ended December
31, 1997 and 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,238,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,489,285
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,764,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,115
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,595,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,764,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,266
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               685,080
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                549,814
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   549,814
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01    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 POWRtec International Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Grant Jasmin, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Grant Jasmin By: Grant Jasmin Chief Executive Officer  Dated: May 15, 2014  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered June 12, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01210-CR

No. 05-18-01211-CR

No. 05-18-01212-CR

No. 05-18-01213-CR

JUAN VELASQUEZ BENITEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-53117-U, F11-62850-U, F12-52399-U & F12-5564-U

ORDER

We REINSTATE the appeals.

By order entered May 28, 2019, the Court abated these appeals to enable the trial court to 

conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief had not been filed. On June 10, 2019, 

appellant requested an extension of time to file his brief and tendered his brief for filing. We 

VACATE our May 28, 2019 order.

We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this 

order. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE