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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID ZANON, 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COMMISSIONER OF

 SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant(s).

/

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-15337

DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the file and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated September 17, 2009. No objections have been filed. The Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby accepted and entered as the

findings and conclusions of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2009

 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, September 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:08-cv-15337-AC-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 437
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IVAN LEE PAGE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-10778

v.

THOMAS BIRKETT, et. al, HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT

AND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

I. 

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Ivan Lee

Page, proceeding pro se, is a state prisoner currently confined at the Standish

Maximum Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan. Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming

his civil rights had been violated stemming from his placement in administrative

segregation. The Court summarily dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. See Order of Summary Dismissal, filed April 7, 2009.

Before the Court are the following motions by plaintiff:

Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. # 9) signed April 7 and filed April 13,

2009

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 10) signed April 7 and

filed April 13, 2009

2:09-cv-10778-AC-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 84
2

Motion to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. #11) signed April 13 and filed April

14, 2009.

II. 

In the first motion to amend (Dkt. #10), plaintiff seeks to further detail the relief he

seeks and add additional parties. In the second motion to amend (Dkt. #11), plaintiff

seeks to add additional allegations regarding his placement in administrative

segregation to support his claim for deprivation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s

motions come too late because the case is closed. However, given plaintiff’s pro se

status and the fact that the motions were filed shortly after the Court’s dismissal order,

the Court has reviewed the motions and concludes that plaintiff’s proposed

amendments do not change the result. That is, plaintiff still fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. Plaintiff still has not alleged that he has forfeited earned

sentence credits on the basis of the complained-of misconduct, or suffered any

deprivation of liberty other than confinement in segregation in order to make out a claim

for violation of his constitutional rights. As explained in the Order of Summary

Dismissal, plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be returned to the general

population at the prison nor does he have a constitutional right to reside at a particular

institution or to enjoy a particular security classification. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions

to amend are DENIED.

2:09-cv-10778-AC-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 85
3

Given this determination, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is also

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 22, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Ivan Lee Page,

#228562, Standish Maximum Correctional Facility, 4713 W M-61, Standish, MI 48658

and the attorneys of record on this date, April 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-10778-AC-DAS Doc # 12 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 86
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-128187 on Form S-3 of our reports relating to i) the consolidated financial
statements of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and subsidiaries dated March
23, 2005, January 10, 2006, as to the effects of the restatement discussed in
Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
restatement discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements), and
ii) the consolidated financial statement schedule dated March 23, 2005 appearing
in this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CenterPoint
Energy Resources Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas

January 10, 2006
EXHIBIT 32



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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Myriad Entertainment and Resorts, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John Meeske, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, 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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual 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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





|                     |                                                          |                
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------
|                     |                                                          |                
|                     |                                                         
|                     |                                                          |                
|Date:  June 18, 2007 | By:                                                      | /s/ John Meeske
|                     | John Meeske                                             
|                     | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 
| | 



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 the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OFCEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Travelport Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeff Clarke, as ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Michael E. Rescoe, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /S/ JEFF CLARKE                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| JEFF  CLARKE  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  MAY 14, 2007  |
|                                                           |
| /S/  MICHAEL E. RESCOE                                         |
| MICHAEL  E. RESCOE  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  MAY 14, 2007 |

 

----
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD WILBURN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 2:09-CV-11022

GARY CAPELLO,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’ S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of qualified

counsel. Petitioner states that he is unable to afford counsel, that the issues in his case

are complex, and that he has limited legal knowledge. Petitioner has submitted his

habeas petition as well as an amended petition, but Respondent has not yet filed an

answer to those pleadings or the state court record.

Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas

review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dept. of Corrs., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995);

see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481

U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within

the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822

F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793

(9th Cir. 1965)). Petitioner has submitted his pleadings in support of his claims. Neither

2:09-cv-11022-RHC-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 09/29/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 145
2

an evidentiary hearing nor discovery are necessary at this time, and the interests of

justice do not require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28

U.S.C. § 2254; R. Governing Sec. 2254 Cases 6(a) and 8(c). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. # 7] is

DENIED. The court will bear in mind Petitioner’s request if, upon further review of the

pleadings and the state court record, the court determines that appointment of counsel

is necessary. Petitioner need not file an additional motion concerning this issue.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 29, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-11022-RHC-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 09/29/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 146
Exhibit 10.26


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


INTERCOMPANY REVOLVING LOAN AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT NO.
1 TO INTERCOMPANY REVOLVING LOAN AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”), dated as of March 28, 2014, is entered into by and between
Apollo Medical Management, Inc. (“Lender”) and Maverick Medical Group Inc. (“Borrower”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties
hereto entered into that certain Intercompany Revolving Loan Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 (the “Loan Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, all capitalized
terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Loan Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, Lender and
Borrower mutually desire to amend the Loan Agreement on and subject to the following terms and conditions.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and of the mutual agreements, representations, warranties, provisions and covenants contained herein
and in the Loan Agreement, the parties hereto, each intending to be bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


		1.	Article 1 is hereby amended to add a new Subsection 1.11A as follows:



 


“Management Agreement”
shall mean the Amended and Restated Management Services Agreement, dated as of March 28, 2014, between Lender and Borrower.


 


		2.	Article 1 is hereby amended to add a new Subsection 1.13A as follows:



 


“Physician” shall mean
Warren Hosseinion, M.D.


 


		3.	Article 2 is hereby amended to add a new Section 2.7 as follows:



 


2.7 Termination of Lending Commitment.
Lender’s obligation to make any Advances under this Loan Agreement shall automatically terminate concurrently with any termination
of the Management Agreement.


 


		4.	Article 5 is hereby amended to add new Subsections (f) and (g) to Section 5.1 as follows:



 


(f) Breach of Physician Shareholder
Agreement. Any material breach by Physician of the Physician Shareholder Agreement, dated as of March 28, 2014 between Lender,
Borrower, Physician, and Apollo Medical Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; or


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


(g) Termination of Management Agreement.
The Management Agreement shall have terminated.


 


		5.	Except as specifically amended hereby, the provisions of the Loan Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.



 


		6.	This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



 


[Remainder of page intentionally left
blank]


 




    	2



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	BORROWER:	 	Maverick Medical Group Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Warren Hosseinion
	 	 	Name: Warren Hosseinion, M.D.
	 	 	Title:  Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	LENDER:	 	Apollo Medical Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Kyle Francis
	 	 	Name: Kyle Francis
	 	 	Title:  Chief Financial Officer


 




    	3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOMMY HALL,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-10933

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

JANY SHARPLEY, RAWAL, CORRECTIONAL

MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and PRISON 

HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

GRANTING DEFENDANT SHARPLEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHARPLEY ONLY

Presently before the Court is a report issued on July 18, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Mark A.

Randon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this Court grant defendant Sharpley’s

motion for summary judgment. Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the

parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of

service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties’ failure to file objections

to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.

#155] is ADOPTED.

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 159 Filed 08/07/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2381
-2-

It is further ORDERED that defendant Sharpley’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #128]

is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with respect to

defendant Sharpley only.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 7, 2012

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 August 7, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-10933-DML-MAR Doc # 159 Filed 08/07/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2382
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 408

- C V

Style: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

v Adan Garza

Date motion filed * : September 14 , 201 8

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions

granted: 0 Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Contrary to appellant’s request to extend the time to file appellant’s brief, no deadline

for the filing of appellant’s brief has been set because the complete appellate record has

not yet been filed. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.6(a). Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s

motion as moot.

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: September 20 , 2018
| No. |         | Company Name                                 |         | Shareholders                                      |         | % ofInterest |
|-----|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------|
| 1   |         | Linkwell      Tech Group, Inc                     |         | Linkwell      Corporation, Inc                    |         | 90%               |
| 2   |         | Shanghai      Likang Disinfectant Hi-Tech Co.,Ltd |         | Linkwell      Tech Group, Inc                     |         | 100%              |
| 3   |    | Shanghai      Likang Biological Hi-Tech Co.,Ltd   |    | Shanghai      Likang Disinfectant Hi-Tech Co.,Ltd |    | 100%              |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20023-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

D-1 BRIAN DENARD COLEMAN,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO THE CONSPIRACY COUNT OF THE

SECOND SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on August 25, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on

August 26, 2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of today’s

date, no party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure

to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review

the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings

and conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 96] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to the conspiracy count of the

1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM Doc # 111 Filed 09/18/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 377
-2-

second superseding indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 94] is taken

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 18, 2009

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 September 18, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM Doc # 111 Filed 09/18/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 378
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 157-7 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3368
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 157-7 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3369
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16180]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 United States Code Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 
the following meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 15, 1996.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Place: Executive Plaza South, Room 400C, Bethesda, MD (telephone 
conference call).
    Contact Person: Marilyn Semmes, Ph.D., Acting Chief, Scientific 
Review Administrator, NIDCD/DEA/SRB, EPS Room 400C, 6120 Executive 
Boulevard, MSC 7180, Bethesda MD 20892-7180, 301-496-8683.
    Purpose Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. The 
meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set forth 
in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, United States Code. 
The applications and/or proposals and the discussion could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
could constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173 
Biological Research Related of Deafness and Communication Disorders)

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-16180 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M