alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 316
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 317
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 318
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID 319
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 320
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 321
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 322
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID 323
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 324
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 325
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 326
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 327
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 328
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID 329
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID 330
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 331
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 332
2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 34-14 Filed 05/06/10 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 333
**EXHIBIT 10.33****DIRECTOR FEE SUMMARY**Set forth below is a summary of the current director fee arrangements for non-employeedirectors serving on the Boards of Directors of Mercantile Bank Corporation (“Mercantile”) and itswholly owned subsidiary, Mercantile Bank of Michigan (“Bank”).For 2007, non-employee directors of the Bank are paid an annual retainer of $12,000, and a feeof $700 for each meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank that they attend. In addition,non-employee directors are paid a meeting fee of $700 for each meeting of the Audit Committee, $600for each meeting of the Compensation Committee and Nominating Committee, and $400 for each meetingof other committees of the Board of Directors of the Bank that they attend. Non-employee directorsare also paid fees of the same amount for meetings of Mercantile’s Board of Directors and itscommittees, when for Board meetings there is not also a meeting of the Board of Directors of theBank on the same day, and for committee meetings when there is not also a meeting of a committee ofthe Board of Directors of the Bank having the same name or function on the same day. For meetingsthat are held by telephone or other remote communications equipment, the meeting fees are half theamount described above. Annual retainer fees are also paid to the Chairmen of three of thecommittees of Mercantile’s Board of Directors. The annual retainer is, for the Chairman of theAudit Committee — $6,000, for the Chairman of the Compensation Committee — $4,000, and for theChairman of the Nominating Committee — $4,000.The same persons currently serve on the Boards of Directors of Mercantile and the Bank. Underthe Bank’s deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors, directors may elect to defer thereceipt of the annual retainer and meeting fees until they are no longer serving on the Board.Directors are eligible to receive stock-based awards under the Stock Incentive Plan of 2006.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

      I, Steven D. Craig, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Golden Phoenix
Minerals, Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

            a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

      6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:    April  ___, 2005                        By: _____________________
                                                     Steven D. Craig
                                                     Chairman of the Board


                                     32.1-1
Exhibit 32.2 

 

**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**

 

I, John E. Farr, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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 fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.Farr
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") of
Mercantile Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

         I, Charles E. Christmas, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of the Issuer, certify that:

         (i)      the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.

Dated: February 26, 2004

                                                 /s/ Charles E. Christmas
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                 Charles E. Christmas
                                                 Senior Vice President, Chief
                                                 Financial Officer and Treasurer
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Douglas Cherry 

, J. 

2 

burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). 

Having considered the parties' arguments and the 

documentation before this court, we conclude that our intervention by 

extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 

818 P.2d at 851; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Petitioner has an 

adequate legal remedy by which to challenge the drug-testing portion of 

her case plan in the form of a motion to revoke or modify the case plan 

under NRS 432B.570(1). See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. NRS 432B.570(2) 

mandates that the district court hold a hearing on such a motion. 

Although petitioner orally objected to the drug-testing portion of her case 

plan below, the district court did not enter any written factual findings on 

the issue, and we cannot determine, based on the limited record before us, 

whether the drug-testing portion of the case plan was a manifest abuse of 

discretion or in excess of the district court's authority. See generally In re 

Sergio C., 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 51, 53 (Ct. App. 1999) (discussing whether 

there is sufficient evidence to allow a district court to require a parent to 

undergo drug testing as part of a case plan to reunify with his or her 

children). Thus, petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that 

extraordinary relief is warranted at this time. Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 

P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

(0) 1947A 4igt(3) 
cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Special Public Defender 

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A »01WItr
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





In connection with the annual report of CPC of America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marcia J. Hein, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer), 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and








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





Date: April 15, 2011
/s/ Marcia J. HeinMarcia J. HeinChief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and

Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

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

           I, David I. Brunson, as Chief Financial Officer of North Atlantic
Trading Company, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated: March 29, 2004
                                         /s/ David I. Brunson
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         David I. Brunson
                                         Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GERALD LEE NEELY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA,

Defendant.

___________________________________ /

Case Number: 08-15243

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed a complaint on December 22, 2008, against Defendant President Barack

Hussein Obama. Plaintiff alleges that President Obama is not qualified to take the Oath of Office

because he will not defend the Constitution. (Compl. 6). Plaintiff further alleges that President

Obama’s vote against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” evidently a piece of legislation

defeated in the Illinois legislature, evidences his inability to defend the Constitution. Plaintiff also

filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis.

“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations

of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no

longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court finds that

Plaintiff’s complaint is, on its face, totally implausible, frivolous and devoid of merit. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and GRANTS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
2

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 4, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

February 4, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD BROWN and NANCY BROWN,

Plaintiffs, No. 09-CV-10864-DT

vs. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on July 14, 2009 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

 Chief Judge, United States District Court

This matter having come before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

for Plaintiffs filed by Plaintiffs’ attorney, Kassem Dakhlallah; and the Court having heard

the arguments of counsel; and having heard on the record on July 13, 2009 the positions

of Plaintiffs Edward Brown and Nancy Brown; and having determined that sufficient

good cause has been shown for the relief requested,

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Dakhlallah’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

for Plaintiffs [Dkt. # 11] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is be, and hereby is, DISMISSED,

Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 16 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 1 of 2
without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to re-file their Complaint within 30 days of the date

of this Order. If, after the expiration of this 30-day period Plaintiffs’ take no action with

respect to matter, this dismissal shall become a dismissal, with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: July 14, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 14, 2009 , I electronically filed the foregoing paper with

the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following: Michael J. Blalock; Jong-Ju Chang; Ari M. Charlip; Kassem M. Dakhlallah;

Joseph A. Doerr; Joseph H. Hickey , and I hereby certify that I have

mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following non-ECF participants:

 Edward Brown, Nancy Brown, 3675 Brookdale Lane; Waterford, MI 483284 .

s/Ruth A. Brissaud 

Ruth A. Brissaud, Case Manager

(313) 234-5137

Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 16 Filed 07/14/2009 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00638

- CR

Joe LEE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10795

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED

.

SIGNED March 18, 2015.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
|                              |                                                           |                                |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Dated:              June 11, 2007 |                                                                |
|                         |                                                      |                           |
|                                   |                                                                | /s/ Todd              D. Montgomery |
|                              | Todd              D. Montgomery, CEO and Director              |
|                              | (Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Copper              Corp.) |

|                              |                                                           |                             |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Dated:              June 11, 2007 |                                                                |
|                         |                                                      |                        |
|                                   |                                                                | /s/ Rakesh              Malhotra |
|                              | Rakesh              Malhotra, Chief Financial Officer          |
|                              | (Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Copper              Corp.) |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2072

DONNA L. BOULWARE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHNIE WILSON, Commanding General, Department

of the Army,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-96-1669-A)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 13, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donna L. Boulware, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Mercer Ray, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment, denial of her motion for reconsideration, and dismissal of Appellant's case filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Boulware v. Wilson, No. CA-96-1669-A (E.D. Va. June

18, 1997; July 9, 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.

AFFIRMED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132226 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan MELVINA SEYFRIED, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132226 COA: 270171 Clinton CC: 05-009930-CK BRUCE SEYFRIED, Defendant,

and

DONALD SEYFRIED and LISA SEYFRIED, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 15, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DERRICK R. MALLORY, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No.09-10866

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC., et al

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

9/21/2009, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is accepted and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: October 20, 2009

2:09-cv-10866-JF-DAS Doc # 25 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 506
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on October 20,

2009.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10866-JF-DAS Doc # 25 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 507
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FIREARMS EXCHANGE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-14408

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

Defendant.

____________________________/

JUDGMENT

Firearms Exchange, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this petition for judicial review of the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (“ATF”) revocation of its Federal

Firearms License (“FFL”). The ATF revoked Plaintiff’s FFL based on its finding that

Plaintiff willfully violated the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-928. In an

Opinion and Order issued on this date, the Court concluded that the ATF’s decision was

authorized.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiff’s petition for

judicial review is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATE:May 27, 2009

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

James T. Simmons, Esq.

Caleb Simon, Esq.

AUSA Derri T. Thomas

Case 2:08-cv-14408-PJD-SDP Document 24 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 1