alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 472 (Rev. 6/05) Order of Detention Pending Trial

United States District Court

Eastern District of Michigan

United States of America ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL 

v.

Rodney Darell Davis / Case Number: 08-30535

 Defendant 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3142(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following

facts require the detention of the defendant pending trial in this case. 

Part I – Findings of Fact

 “ (1) I find that:

“ there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense

“ for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in 21 U.S.C. § 841 or 846;

 “ under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

 “ (2) I further find that the defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding that no condition or combination

of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.

Alternative Findings

T I find that the government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a serious risk that the defendant

will not appear.

T I find that the government has established by clear and convincing evidence that there is a serious risk that the defendant

will endanger the safety of another person or the community.

Part II – Written Statement of Reasons for Detention

T I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing established the following factors under 18

U.S.C. § 3142(g):

T (a) nature of the offense - Theft of Government Property. Felon in Possession of Firearm.

T (b) weight of the evidence - Very strong, including defendant’s admission.

 T (c) history and characteristics of the defendant -

T 1) physical and mental condition - Long term drug abuse.

T 2) employment, financial, family ties - No job or assets, minimal family ties.

T 3) criminal history and record of appearance - Seven felony convictions.

T (d) probation, parole or bond at time of the alleged offense - Absconder from probation - warrant will issue.

T (e) danger to another person or community - Defendant charged with stealing a firearm, and he has a prior

weapons offense.

.

Part III – Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending

appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of

the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the

defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

s/Donald A. Scheer 

Date: December 11, 2008 Signature of Judge

Donald A. Scheer, United States Magistrate Judge 

 Name and Title of Judge
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael J. Culotta, certify that: 

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

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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

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, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. [Intentionally omitted] 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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; and 

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b. Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

DATE: November 8, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16437]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Advisory Committee Notice (Yakima Training Center Cultural and 
Natural Resources Committee Policy Committee)

AGENCY: Headquarters, I Corps and Ft. Lewis, Ft. Lewis, WA.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463) announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting.

    Name of Committee: Yakima Training Center Cultural and Natural 
Resources Committee Policy Committee.
    Date: July 24, 1996.
    Place: Yakima Training Center, Building 266, Yakima, Washington.
    Time: 1:30 p.m.
    Proposed Agenda: Draft Cultural and Natural Resources Management 
Plan review. All proceedings are open.
    For Further Information Contact: Stephen Hart, Chief, Civil Law, 
(206) 967-0763.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16437 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Michael E. Healy, 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 on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.




Date: May 9, 2011By:
/s/ Michael E. HealyName:
Michael E. HealyTitle:
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)




This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenced into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made on or before or after the date of this Report), irrespective at any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Diane S. Button, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers of Cactus Ventures, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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 3, 2010  /s/ Diane S. Button Diane S. Button President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Cactus Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Cactus Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection with the quarterly report of Infolinx
Communications Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB/A for the fiscal period ending
February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Garfield, President & C.E.O. 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 the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

/s/Mark Garfield

Name: Mark GarfieldTitle: President & Chief Executive
Officer 
May 28, 2008

---
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3680

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to carry

criminal penalties for certain war crimes.States under the Geneva Conventions to provideout the international obligations of the United
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3680

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to carry out the

international obligations of the United States under the

Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3680 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘War Crimes Act of

3 1996’’.

4 SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN WAR CRIMES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended by inserting after chapter 117 the following:

7 ‘‘CHAPTER 118—WAR CRIMES

‘‘Sec.

‘‘2401. War crimes.

8 ‘‘§ 2401. War crimes

9 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever, whether inside or outside

10 the United States, commits a grave breach of the Geneva

11 Conventions, in any of the circumstances described in sub12 section (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

13 for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results

14 to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

15 ‘‘(b) CIRCUMSTANCES.—The circumstances referred

16 to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such

17 breach or the victim of such breach is a member of the

18 armed forces of the United States or a national of the

19 United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigra20 tion and Nationality Act).

21 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term

22 ‘grave breach of the Geneva Conventions’ means conduct

23 defined as a grave breach in any of the international con24 ventions relating to the laws of warfare signed at Geneva
3

•HR 3680 EH

1 12 August 1949 or any protocol to any such convention,

2 to which the United States is a party.’’.

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters

4 for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

5 inserting after the item relating to chapter 117 the follow6 ing new item:

‘‘118. War crimes ................................................................................ 2401’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 21.01
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
  Corporation Name
    
    JurisdictionDiscovery Mining, Inc.
    
    United StatesDiscovery Mining Ltd.
    
    United KingdomInterwoven AB
    
    SwedenInterwoven Australia Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaInterwoven BV
    
    The NetherlandsInterwoven Canada Ltd.
    
    CanadaInterwoven GmbH
    
    GermanyInterwoven Hong Kong Ltd.
    
    Hong KongInterwoven Japan KK
    
    JapanInterwoven Korea Inc.
    
    KoreaInterwoven SARL
    
    FranceInterwoven Software Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeInterwoven Software Services India Private Limited
    
    IndiaInterwoven Software SL
    
    SpainInterwoven Srl
    
    ItalyInterwoven UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomOptimost Limited
    
    United KingdomOptimost LLC
    
    United States
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond Lee AUBERLIN, Appellant.

No. WD 42565.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 7, 1990.

*923Susan L. Hogan, Office of the Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction, following a jury trial, of forcible rape.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MINHAS ENERGY CONSULTANTS,  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"),  I,
Ravinder Minhas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                       /s/ Ravinder Minhas
                                       --------------------------
Date: October 29, 2007                 Ravinder Minhas
                                       Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50502

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAFAEL PRECIADO-VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-526-4

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rafael Preciado-Vega has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Preciado-Vega has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and 

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50502 Document: 00514396065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
No. 17-50502

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50502 Document: 00514396065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
#### Michael J. DEIERL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51623.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 30, 1996.

David Simpson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-CR-00422-DJH

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed Mr. Larkin’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond 

to Vincent Ferrer’s Amended Motion to Quash, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Vincent 

Ferrer’s Amended Motion to Quash is granted.

DATED this day of , 20 .

 

HON. DIANE J. HUMETEWA

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1450-1 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 1
1 

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Ex.A Volume I of Trial Transcript 

Ex.B Volume II of Trial Transcript 

Jt.Ex1: Employment Agreement 

Jt.Ex.3 11/19/08 Letter to Shafi from Weidinger 

Jt.Ex.4: 11/24/08 email to Shafi from Milton 

Df.Ex.107: 8/15/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re Braintech email address 

Df.Ex.109: 8/19/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re insurance coverage 

Df.Ex.113: 8/20/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re software gathering 

Df.Ex.182: 9/12/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re draft employment letters 

Df.Ex.186: 9/12/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re deep dive into Reliabot 

Df.Ex.190: 9/16/08 Shafi to Manias email re John Neilson training, etc. 

Df.Ex.207: 9/23/08 Shafi to Weidinger email rejecting Manias 

Df.Ex.208: 9/24/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re employment agreement 

Df.Ex.221: 10/9/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re unauthorized use of credit card 

Df.Ex.238: 10/16/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re compensation figures 

Df.Ex.242: 10/17/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re refusal to travel 

Df.Ex.243: 10/19/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re response to revenue: damage 

Df.Ex.245: 10/20/08 Shafi to Weidinger email re writing employment offers 

Df.Ex.253: 10/20/08 Shafi to Weidinger email re passing on ESM meeting 

Df.Ex.254: 10/20/08 Weidinger/Shafi email exchange re ESM conference call 

Df.Ex.255: 10/20/08 Shafi/Weidinger email exchange re Shafi refusal to attend 

Df.Ex.272: 10/27/08 Shafi to Weidinger email re work plan week of Oct 27 

Df.Ex.278: 10/31/08 email regarding medical bill 

Df.Ex.279: 11/1/08 Dara to Shafi email re Reliabot product readiness 

Df.Ex.281: 11/2/08 Weidinger to sales team email re 11/7 sales plan meeting 

Df.Ex.285: 11/4/08 Dara to Shafi email re overflowing frustrations 

Df.Ex.286: 11/5/08 Burr to Shafi email re BCBS November premium paid 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 154-1 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3255
2 

Df.Ex.288: 11/6/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re attendance at sales plan meeting 

Df.Ex.290: 11/9/08 Boca to Shafi email re request for Reliabot software 

Df.Ex.294: 11/10/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re attendance at meetings a priority 

Df.Ex.299: 11/10/08 Shafi/Boca email exchange re request for written points despite 

 Shafi disagreement with Reliabot evaluation 

 

Df.Ex.302: 11/12/08 Weidinger to Shafi email re Shafi absence from meetings 

Df.Ex.304: 11/13/08 Shafi to Weidinger email re medical insurance issues 

Df.Ex.315: 9/28/09 Shafi Response to Braintech Request to Admit Nos. 62 and 63 

Df.Ex.316: Reliabot comparison report 

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 154-1 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3256
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3818

To amend the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol compounds emitted

from aging warehouses from the definition of volatile organic compounds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 16, 1996

Mr. HAMILTON (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr.

GORDON, Mr. MCINTOSH, and Mr. WARD) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol

compounds emitted from aging warehouses from the definition of volatile organic compounds.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COM4 POUNDS.

5 Section 302(s) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

6 7602(s)) is amended by adding the following at the end

7 thereof: ‘‘Such term shall not include beverage alcohol

8 compounds (ethanol) emitted from aging warehouses.’’.

Æ
Order entered April 13, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01514
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K .S.K., A CHILD On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD
- 12
- 01231



### O RD ER
Before the Court is appellant’s April 11, 2016 motion requesting a sixty

- day extension of time to file a brief. Appellant states she needs additional time because she is trying to locate the 1976 adoption case file and reporter’s record from the adopt ion hearing. An appellate court considers and weighs all evidence that was before the trial court

. See Metroplex Mailing Servs., LLC v. RR Donnelley & Sons Co. , 410 S.W.3d 889, 898 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2013 , no pet. )

. Because these documents appellant is s earching for were not before the trial court, we DENY appellant’s motion. On the Court’s own motion, we ORDER appellant to file a brief by MAY 13 , 2016

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 1, 2015

a0624

Order 

Clerk

July 1, 2015

149415 & (57)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149415

COA: 309421

Wayne CC: 11-009624-FC

KEVIN JUNE MCCONER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a supplement application is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the April 15, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.