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

 /

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES (DKT. NO. 111)

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories from Prison

Health Services (Dkt. No. 111). The Court has reviewed this motion and response thereto

(Dkt. No. 113). Being otherwise fully advised,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

A) Prison Health Services’ objection to Interrogatory No. 1 IS SUSTAINED.

B) Prison Health Services’ objection to Interrogatory No. 3 IS OVERRULED.

C) Prison Health Services’ objection to Interrogatory No. 4 IS OVERRULED.

Prison Health Services shall provide Plaintiff responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4

on or before February 24, 2012.

 s/Mark A. Randon 

MARK A. RANDON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: February 9, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys and/or parties

of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 9, 2012.

s/Melody R. Miles 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 147 Filed 02/09/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 2288
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 20

- 1144

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew Eric Dolven

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________
Submitted: November 16 , 2020 Filed: February 2, 20 21 [Unpublished]

____________
Before SHEPHERD

, STRAS , an d KOBES , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM

.

Matthew Dolven received a 360

- month prison sentence after pleading guilty
to two child

- pornography counts. 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e) (production) ; 2252(a)(2), (b)(1) (distribution)

. Alt hough Dolven argues that his sentence is unreasonable, we affirm.- 2

- The district court 1 varied downward after considering multiple mitigating
factors

. See United States v. Townsend , 617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[The defendant] must show more than the fact that the district court disagreed with his view of what weight ought to be accorded [to] certain sentencing factors.”). “ In these circumstances, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward [even] further.” United States v. Lazarski

, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009).

Dolven’s other arguments fare no better

. Although he complains that the Sentencing Guidelines for child

- pornography offenses are “overly punitive,” t he
district court ha d no obligation to vary downward on pure “policy grounds ,” even if
it could have done so

. United States v. Black

, 670 F.3d 877

, 882 (8th Cir. 201 2).
Nor has he demonstrated that a 360

- month prison sentence create s “unwarranted

sentenc e disparities

. ” 18 U.S.C. § 355 3(a)(6) ; s ee United States v. Carr , 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) ( “[A] sentencing [-] disparity argument requires a showing
that the [defendant] and his comparators are similar in conduct and record .” (internal quotation marks omitted) ).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Susan R ichard Nelson, United States District Judge for the D istrict of Minnesota.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

We, William T.Yeates, Chief Executive Officer, and Paul E. Ross, Vice President—Finance,Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Power-One, Inc. (the “Company”),do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to ourknowledge:

(i)            the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)        theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: March 16, 2007                    |
|----------------------------------------------|
| /s/  WILLIAM T. YEATES                       |   |
| William T. Yeates                            |
| *Chief Executive Officer*                    |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)*              |
| /s/  PAUL E. ROSS                            |   |
| Paul E. Ross                                 |
| *Vice President—Finance, Treasurer and* |
| *Chief Financial Officer*                    |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)*              |

 

----
| (1)   | the      quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cody Resources, Inc. for the quarter      ended February 29, 2008 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the      quarter ended February 29, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of Cody Resources,      Inc.. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Donald      Sampson                                                  |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Donald      L. Sampson                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal      Executive Officer,Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  April      14, 2008                                                            |
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-7 Filed 03/14/11 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-7 Filed 03/14/11 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-7 Filed 03/14/11 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 91-7 Filed 03/14/11 Page 4 of 4
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

MERCEDES C ARDONA, Ap pe lla nt,
v. HARTS HOMESTEAD, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 11 -0 00 60 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. 5 of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2010-J00112)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This appea l is before the Court on its own moti on to determine whether it should be dismiss ed. B eca

use Appe llant has not filed a br ief, we dismiss the appe al for w ant of prosec ution. On May 31, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that he r brief was pa st due and that no motion for extension of time had bee n rec eived. The Clerk also informe d the par ties of the Court’s intent to dismiss t he appe al for w ant of prose cution unless, within ten day s of the notice, a pa

rty responde d showingg rounds to continue the a ppeal. To this date, no one has responde d to the Clerk’s letter
. This Court has the authority to dismi ss an appe al for w ant of prose cution when the appellants fa il to file a brief in the time prescribed and g ive no re asonable explanation for the failure to do so. T EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .8 (a)( 1) ; El izo nd o v . Ci ty of S an An ton io , 975 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.) . Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of-2-

prosec ution.

J uly 13, 2011 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-88635 of Dot Hill Systems Corp. on Form S-8 of our reports dated (1)
January 25, 2000 related to the consolidated financial statements of Dot Hill
Systems Corp. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and for the year
then ended, and (2) May 6, 1999 related to the consolidated financial
statements of Artecon, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and for
each of the two years in the period ended March 31, 1999 (not presented
separately herein), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dot Hill
Systems Corp. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 29, 2000
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSino Charter Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Bradley W. Miller, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    
| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 15thday of July, 2008.

BRADLEY W. MILLERBradley W. MillerChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer














---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Sebastian Lucido,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Case No. 08-15269

Robert S. Mueller III, in his personal Honorable Sean F. Cox

and official capacities as Director of 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

and the Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiff Sebastian Lucido (“Lucido”) filed this civil action on December 24, 2008. The

matter is currently before the Court on Lucido’s “Motion to Consolidate Two Related Criminal

Cases and One Related Civil Case Before The Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds As The Judge With The

First-Filed Matter.” (Docket Entry No. 5).

In his motion, Lucido asserts that he is seeking the same relief –expungement of his

arrest record – in three different cases in this Court: 1) Criminal Case No. 92-80152, assigned to

the Honorable Nancy Edmunds; 2) Criminal Case No. 93-81310, originally assigned to the

Honorable George LaPlata but later reassigned to the Honorable Paul Borman; and 3) this action. 

Citing Civil Local Rule 83.11(b)(7) and Criminal Local Rule 57.10, Lucido asserts that this case,

and the action assigned to Judge Borman, should be reassigned to Judge Edmunds as companion

cases to her case having the lower case number, and then the three actions could be consolidated.

Civil Local Rule 83.11(b)(7)C) provides that “[w]hen it becomes apparent to the Judge to

2:08-cv-15269-SFC-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 06/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 536
whom a case is assigned and to a Judge having an earlier case number that two cases are

companion cases, upon consent of the Judge having the earlier case number, the Judge shall sign

an order reassigning the case to the Judge having the earlier case number.” L.R.

83.11(b)(7)(C)(emphasis added). Following receipt of this motion, this Court made inquiry as to

whether Judge Edmunds believes this case is a companion case to her Criminal Case No. 92-

80152. Judge Edmunds advised that she has determined that this action is not a companion to

her case. Thus, this action will not be reassigned to Judge Edmunds. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: June 1, 2009

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

June 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-15269-SFC-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 06/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 537
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50790

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Benjamin Burciaga-Herrera, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CR-276-1

______________________________

Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Benjamin Burciaga-Herrera appeals the term of imprisonment 

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal. 

He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a 

sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 7, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50790 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024
No. 23-50790

2

§ 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found 

by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burciaga-Herrera has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

disposition and a letter brief correctly conceding that the only issue he raises 

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See 

United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). He explains that 

he has raised the issue to preserve it for possible further review. 

Accordingly, because summary disposition is appropriate, see 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), 

Burciaga-Herrera’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50790 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3707 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3707

  To extend the legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War 
         Patriots Foundation to establish a commemorative work.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 1996

 Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, and 
   Mr. Payne of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War 
         Patriots Foundation to establish a commemorative work.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR MEMORIAL 
              ESTABLISHMENT.

    The legislative authority for the Black Revolutionary War Patriots 
Foundation to establish a commemorative work (as defined by the 
Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)) shall expire October 
27, 1998, notwithstanding the time period limitation specified in 
section 10(b) of that Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>




                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Board of Directors
CONDOR TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (333-57413), (333-64505) and (333-73055) of our report
dated April 2, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Condor Technology Solutions, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                                               BDO Seidman, LLP


Washington, D.C.
June 29, 2001
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
 CPA®:14
2007 10-K  77
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1735

In re: DAVID DEAN BUZZARD, JR. , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:18

- cv
- 00062

- GMG

- RWT )

Submitted : November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
David Dean Buzzard, Jr

. , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Dean Buzzard, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint . He seeks an order from this court directing the dis trict court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We grant in part Buzzard’s motion to seal with respect to the motion to seal itself and deny in part the motion with respect to the remainder of the appellate record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
```
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  School4Chauffeurs,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Jeffery E. Jones,  Secretary/Treasurer 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 my 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: April 6, 2010

                                        By: /s/ JEFFERY E. JONES
                                            ___________________________
                                                Jeffery E. Jones
                                                Secretary/Treasurer
```
EX-10.76



 Exhibit 10.76 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into and effective as of
April 11, 2014, by and between Goodman Networks Incorporated (the “Company”) and Joseph M. Goodman (“Employee”). 

WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, dated February 1, 2013, by
and between the Company and Employee (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to
provide for the annual granting of equity awards by the Company to Employee. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises
and the mutual promises set forth in this Amendment, the Company and Employee hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
 1. Section 4 of
the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following new Section 4.9: 
 4.9 Annual Equity Grant. During each
year of the Term, Employee shall be eligible to receive an annual award of equity compensation, of the type and in the amounts and subject to such terms as determined by the Board, in its sole discretion. Such awards of equity compensation shall be
subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s equity incentive plans, as they may be amended from time to time in the Company’s sole discretion, and the award agreements granting such equity compensation pursuant to such plans. 

2. Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect in accordance with its
terms. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the date set forth above. 

 

			
	GOODMAN NETWORKS INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ron B. Hill

	Name:	 	Ron B. Hill
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer and President
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Joseph M. Goodman

	Joseph M. Goodman