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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-20517-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

D-1 DAVID TINOCO,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT ONE, AND TAKING THE RULE 11

PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on May 27, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge Charles

E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on May 28,

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

# 117] is ADOPTED.

Case 1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB ECF No. 133, PageID.448 Filed 06/30/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to count one is ACCEPTED,

and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 112] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: June 30, 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 June 30, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB ECF No. 133, PageID.449 Filed 06/30/09 Page 2 of 2
#### Myra NIKOLA and Charles Kevin Nikola, Appellants, v. MAY DEPT. STORES CO., Respondent.

No. 64865.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 30, 1994.

Burton Newman, Michael A. Gross, Private Attys., St. Louis, for appellants.

Eugene K. Buckley, John S. McCollough, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s granting of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence, and 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).
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Terry LOVELESS, Defendant/Appellant. Terry LOVELESS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 61554, 63734.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 7, 1993.

*898Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced in accordance with the jury’s verdict to eighteen years imprisonment. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We, the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Pervasive Software Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2006 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Pervasive Software Inc.



By:

/s/ John E. FarrName: John FarrTitle: Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Randall G. JonkersName: Randall G. JonkersTitle: Chief Financial Officer
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: September 3, 2021 

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr., Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present

Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained

Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present 

Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg, Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released - Present

Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

JURY TRIAL – DAY 3: 

9:10 a.m. Court is in session. Counsel and defendants are present. The jury panel is not present. The 

Court is advised that Jurors No. 18 and 33 would like to address the Court. 9:16 a.m. Juror No. 33 is 

present and addresses the Court. 9:18 a.m. Juror No. 33 is excused from the courtroom. 9:20 a.m. Juror 

18 is present and addresses the Court. 9:23 a.m. Juror No. 18 is excused from the courtroom. Upon 

agreement from counsel, Jurors No. 33 and 18 are excused. Discussion held regarding remaining jurors

and remaining strikes. 9:34 a.m. Court is in recess. 

9:56 a.m. Court reconvenes. Counsel and defendants are present. The Court is advised that there are no 

Batson challenges. 10:47 a.m. The jury is present. Seventeen (17) jurors are seated. The remaining panel 

members are dismissed. The jury is sworn 10:54 a.m. The jury exits the courtroom and Court remains in 

session. Matters discussed. 11:24 a.m. Court is in recess. 

11:45 a.m. Court reconvenes. Counsel and defendants are present. The jury is present. Preliminary Jury 

instructions are read. 12:08 p.m. Court is in recess. 

1:15 p.m. Court reconvenes. Counsel and defendants are present. The jury is present. The Government 

presents opening statements. 3:08 p.m. Court is in recess.

3:26 p.m. Court reconvenes. Counsel and defendants are present. The jury is not present. The 

defendants’ oral motion for declaration of mistrial is argued to the Court. The matter is taken under 

advisement pending a written motion. The Government is directed to provide the Court with a statement 

from the professor and the statement from the mother. Defendants are directed to file their written motion 

no later than Monday, September 6, 2021. 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp, 

Reginald Jones and Daniel Boyle

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1277 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 2
USA v. Lacey et al Date: September 3, 2021 

Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB Page 2 of 2

Page 2 of 2

4:10 p.m. Court is in recess until 9:00 a.m. on September 8, 2021.

Court Reporter Linda Schroeder-Willis (AM)

 Christine Coaley (PM)

Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

TD: 4 hrs 12 mins 

Start: 9:10 AM

Stop: 4:10 PM

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1277 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID BELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-370, CA-97-1575-7)

Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: May 5, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bell, Appellant Pro Se. David Clahoun Stephens, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Bell, Nos. CR-93-370; CA97-1575-7 (D.S.C. July 15, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 958 

Congratulating the United States Men’s National Soccer Team for securing 

a berth at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mrs. 

BONO MACK, and Mr. REICHERT) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the United States Men’s National Soccer 

Team for securing a berth at the 2010 FIFA World 

Cup in South Africa. 

Whereas, on October 10, 2009, in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the United States Men’s Soccer Team achieved an 

impressive victory over the Honduran Men’s National 

Soccer Team by a score of 3 to 2 in its penultimate 

qualifying match for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; 

Whereas 2 goals by forward Conor Casey, 1 goal by 

midfielder Landon Donovan, 3 critical saves by goalkeeper Tim Howard, and an untiring effort by all players 

led to their ultimate victory; 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 958 IH 

Whereas with its victory over the Honduran Men’s National 

Soccer Team, the United States Men’s Soccer Team has 

joined the national soccer teams from Brazil, Germany, 

Italy, Spain, and South Korea as the only teams that will 

have participated in all 6 FIFA World Cups since 1990, 

including the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa; 

Whereas with its dramatic and emotional come-from-behind 

tie against the Costa Rican Men’s National Soccer Team 

by a score of 2 to 2 on October 14, 2009, the United 

States finished in first place in the CONCACAF World 

Cup qualifying standings; and 

Whereas the entire United States Men’s National Soccer 

Team has demonstrated once again that United States 

soccer is on par with the level of soccer played in nations 

that claim it as their national sport: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the United States Men’s National Soccer Team 

3 for its achievement in securing a berth at the 2010 FIFA 

4 World Cup in South Africa. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBIN REID,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-999

[July 23, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-6978CF10A.

Robin Reid, Miami, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina JimenezOrosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

KATHLEEN E. KRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO: 08-15198-DT

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued his

report on January 5, 2010, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be

denied and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. No objections have

been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). 

Having reviewed the file and the report, the court concludes that the findings and

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for purposes of this

Order.

IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:08-cv-15198-RHC-MJH Doc # 14 Filed 01/28/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 621
2

Dated: January 28, 2010

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

this date, January 28, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:08-cv-15198-RHC-MJH Doc # 14 Filed 01/28/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 622
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3011-3012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1727]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Assessment Governing Board

AGENCY: National Assessment Governing Board; Education.

ACTION: Notice of Teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting of the Executive Committee of the National 
Assessment Governing Board. This notice also describes the functions of 
the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify 
the general public of their opportunity to attend.

DATES: February 2, 1996.

TIME: 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. (e.s.t.).

LOCATION: 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 825, Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Ann Wilmer, Operations Officer, National Assessment Governing 
Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 
20002-4233, Telephone: (202) 357-6938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Assessment Governing Board is 
established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act 
of 1994 (Title IV of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994).
    The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Board is responsible 
for selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment 
objectives, identifying appropriate achievement goals for each grade 
and subject tested, and establishing standards and procedures for 
interstate and national comparisons.
    The Executive Committee of the National Assessment Governing Board 
will meet February 2, 1996 from 1:00 

[[Page 3012]]
p.m. until 2:30 p.m. Because this is a teleconference meeting, 
facilities will be provided so the public will have access to the 
Committee's deliberations. The Committee will review and approve the 
agenda for the March meeting of the Board; review progress of Planning 
Initiative; discuss priorities for 1997 and 1998 assessments, and plans 
for the release of the 1996 math report.
    Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for 
public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National 
Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Dated: January 25, 1996.
Roy Truby,
Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 96-1727 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
{00008979;v1 }

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff

v.

BRAINTECH, INC, a Nevada corporation,

Counterclaim Defendant,

and

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual,

Additional Counterclaim Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 09-10454

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

STIPULATION ALLOWING SHAFI TO FILE A SUR-REPLY BRIEF TO BRAINTECH 

AND WEIDINGER’S REPLY BRIEF TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The parties, through their respective undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate and 

agree as follows:

1. On January 7, 2011, counter defendants Braintech and Weidinger filed 

their reply brief [Docket #81] to their previously filed motion for summary judgment. The 

reply brief was 14 pages in length and contained 17 exhibits. 

2. Upon review and consideration of the reply brief of Braintech and 

Weidinger, Shafi formed a belief that the reply brief and its exhibits contained new 

material and new arguments.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 83 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 3
{00008979;v1 } 2

3. Accordingly, on January 19, 2011, pursuant to local rule 7.1(a), counsel 

for Shafi initiated a telephone conference with counsel for Braintech and Weidinger, for 

the purpose of discussing Shafi’s intention to file a motion to strike the reply or in the 

alternative for permission to allow a sur-reply.

4. As a result of the discussion which took place in the conference call held 

on January 19, 2011, the parties have agreed, subject to this Court’s approval, that 

Shafi will be permitted to file a Sur-Reply brief regarding summary judgment no later 

than Monday, January 24, 2011, and limited to 5 pages.

5. The parties acknowledge that the agreement of Braintech and Weidinger 

allowing Shafi to file a Sur-Reply brief is not an admission by Braintech and Weidinger 

that the reply brief is in any way improper under Rule 56, or in general, under summary 

judgment practice. Braintech and Weidinger have agreed to this accommodation purely 

as a means of avoiding additional briefing on the issue of whether the reply brief 

contained new grounds, new exhibits and new material regarding summary judgment.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 83 Filed 01/20/11 Page 2 of 3
{00008979;v1 } 3

Stipulated as to form and substance:

By: _/s/James P. Murphy_______

BERRY MOORMAN P.C.

James P. Murphy (P36728)

535 Griswold, Suite 1900

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 496-1200

murph@berrymoorman.com

Attorneys for Adil Shafi

By: /s/ Anne Widlak

NEMETH BURWELL, P.C.

Anne Widlak (P35763)

Susan D. Koval (P59297)

200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200

Detroit, Michigan 48207

(313) 567-5921

awidlak@nemethburwell.com

skoval@nemethburwell.com

Attorneys for Braintech, Inc.

By: /s/ Geoffrey J. Greeves

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW 

PTITMAN LLP

Geoffrey J. Greeves 

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1122

(202) 663-9228

geoffrey.greeves@pillsburylaw.com

Attorney for Frederick Weidinger

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 83 Filed 01/20/11 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated September 8, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and scheduleand internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Pervasive Software Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Pervasive Software Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-140833, File No. 333-116957, File No. 333-104770, File No. 333-70604, File No. 333-57500, File No. 333-92707, File No. 333-67659 and FileNo. 333-37347). 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Dallas, Texas 

September 8, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 35083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17327]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 130 / Friday, July 5, 1996 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 35083]]

                Proclamation 6907 of July 1, 1996

                
Declaration of a State of Emergency and Release 
                of Feed Grain From the Disaster Reserve

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                WHEREAS, an extended drought and other natural 
                disasters in feed grain-producing areas of the United 
                States have caused significant reductions in feed grain 
                supplies and severe hardship to livestock producers;

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the 
                United States of America, acting under the authority 
                vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the 
                United States, including sections 201 and 301 of the 
                National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and 
                section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 
                1427a) (the ``Act''), do hereby find and proclaim that 
                the extended drought in the Southwest and other natural 
                disasters in other feed grain areas of the United 
                States have resulted in a state of emergency and that 
                the state of emergency warrants the release of the 
                reserve established pursuant to section 813(a) of the 
                Act (7 U.S.C. 1427a(a)). Accordingly, I hereby declare 
                that such amounts of the reserve as determined 
                necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture (``the 
                Secretary'') should be disposed of by the Secretary as 
                authorized by the Act.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                first day of July, in the year of our Lord nineteen 
                hundred and ninety-six, and of the Independence of the 
                United States of America the two hundred and twentieth.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

[FR Doc. 96-17327
Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P