alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 1 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 2 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 3 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 4 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 5 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 6 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 7 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 8 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 9 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 10 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 11 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 12 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 13 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 14 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 15 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 16 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 17 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 18 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 19 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 20 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 21 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 22 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 23 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 24 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 25 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 26 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 27 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 66-23 Filed 11/19/10 Page 28 of 28
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 of Targa Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Rene R. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of Targa Resources, Inc., 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 his knowledge:




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




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




Date: August 6, 2009





By:
/s/    RENE R. JOYCEName:
Rene R. JoyceTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
Targa Resources, Inc.
(Principal Executive 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 Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
32910 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

41 CFR Part 50–203

Establishment of the Administrative

Review Board; Final Rule; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Labor.

ACTION: Correction to final rule.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the final regulations which

were published Friday, May 3, 1996 (61

FR 19982). The regulations established

the Administrative Review Board and

consolidated, within this one entity, the

authority delegated by the Secretary of

Labor to decide administrative appeals

and matters under administrative

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. O’Brien, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room S–4309, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210,

Telephone (202) 219–4728.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are the

subject of this correction established the

Administrative Review Board and

consolidated, within this one entity, the

authority delegated by the Secretary of

Labor to decide administrative appeals

and matters under administrative

review.

Need for Correction

The document published on May 3rd

contained 92 paragraphs of amendment.

Due to inadvertence, one sentence in the

regulations (that being the second

sentence in § 50–203.8(a)) was

overlooked and not included in the

amendatory process. This document

corrects that omission.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on May

3, 1996 of the final regulations

(Establishment of the Administrative

Review Board) which were the subject

of FR Doc. 96–9910, is corrected as

follows:

On page 19987, in the third column,

insert a new amendatory paragraph,

entitled paragraph 71a, to read as

follows:

§ 50–203.8 [Corrected]

‘‘71a. In § 50–203.8(a) remove the

words ‘‘Trial Examiner(s)’’ and add, in

their place, the words ‘‘administrative

law judge(s)’’, wherever they appear in

the second and third sentences.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 20th day

of June, 1996.

Robert B. Reich,

Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 96–16161 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACKIE CUMMINGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-11814

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [11] 

This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's April 15, 2010 Report

and Recommendation [11]. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the

record and the pleadings, the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and this case is

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

s/NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: July 12, 2010
2

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

on July 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3768 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3768

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1996

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate a United States Post Office to be located in Groton, 
 Massachusetts, as the ``Augusta `Gusty' Hornblower United States Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office to be located at 80 Boston Road in 
Groton, Massachusetts, shall be designated and known as the ``Augusta 
`Gusty' Hornblower United States Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred 
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Augusta 
`Gusty' Hornblower United States Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33109-33110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16223]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT96-68-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 20, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 17, 1996, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing certain revised tariff sheets 
to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 and Original Volume 
No. 2, which tariff sheets are included in Appendix A attached to the 
filing. The proposed effective date of such tariff sheets is August 1, 
1996.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to 
terminate Section 7(c) firm transportation service provided to South 
Jersey Gas Company (South Jersey) under Rate Schedule X-281 and to 
convert such service to service provided under Rate Schedule FT 
pursuant to Transco's blanket transportation certificate and Part 284 
of the Commission's Regulations effective August 1, 1996.
    Transco states that the rates applicable to the converted service 
are the generally applicable charges under Rate Schedule FT (including 
fuel), plus reservation and commodity rate surcharges as set forth on 
Sheet No. 40A to Transco's Third Revised Volume No. 1 Tariff. Sheet No. 
40A sets forth charges applicable to Incremental Leidy Line Annual Firm 
Transportation which has been converted from individually certificated 
Section 7(c) firm transportation service to service under Transco's 
blanket certificate and Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to South 
Jersey and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding.

[[Page 33110]]

Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16223 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the three-month
period ending November 30, 2007 of Caddystats, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Gordon Dawson, Chairman, President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Quarterly  Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section
          13(a) or15(d) of the  Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

     2.   The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operation of the Company.



/s/ GORDON DAWSON
____________________________________________________________
Gordon Dawson
President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Sole Director


Date: January 4, 2008
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Deer Consumer Products,
Inc, (the “Company”) for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Zongshu Nie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 his knowledge:





(1)
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





Dated:  November
      5, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/Zongshu
      NieZongshu
      NieChief
      Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 72 filed 11/26/18 PageID.717 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:08-cv-14792-RHC-MKM ECF No. 72 filed 11/26/18 PageID.718 Page 2 of 2
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 158-9 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3403
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT HOARD IV,

Petitioner, Case Number: 09-10604

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

PAUL KLEE,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Robert Hoard VI filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that

his state drug and firearms convictions were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to present a defense, to the effective assistance of

counsel, and to a fair trial. On March 22, 2012, the Court found that his claims lacked merit and

denied the petition. On the same day, the Court entered an order denying a certificate of

appealability. Presently, the matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for a certificate

of appealability. 

The Court has denied a certificate of appealability already; therefore, it will treat the

petitioner’s motion as one for reconsideration of the Court’s March 22, 2012 order denying

certificate of appealability. A motion for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(h)(1) when the moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the

parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or

plain. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations

omitted). 
-2-

The defendant has not presented any evidence of a palpable defect that misled the Court.

Instead, the defendant’s motion merely revisits issues already decided by the Court. Therefore, the

Court will deny the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. If the petitioner wishes to pursue his

appeal, he “may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22.” Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for certificate of appealability

[dkt. #20] is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: April 30, 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 April 30, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. 

 Civil Action No: 2:09-cv-10384 

 Plaintiff, 

 Hon. John Corbett O’Meara 

v. 

 

PANDA 1 EXPRESS, INC., and 

SAMUEL HE HUANG, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________________________________________/ 

CONSENT DECREE AND INJUNCTION

 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, 

through their respective attorneys, as follows: 

1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants, Panda 1 Express, Inc. and 

Samuel He Huang (hereinafter jointly referred to as “PANDA 1”), and has jurisdiction over the 

subject matter of this action. 

 2. PANDA 1 agrees that Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Panda RG”) is the owner of 

U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 1,516,769, 1,991,081, 1,741,866, 2,018,848, 1,575,742, 

1,708,093, 1,707,360, 2,430,444 and 2,501,422 (the "Panda RG Trademarks”). 

 3. PANDA 1 agrees that the Panda RG Trademarks are valid and enforceable, and 

that PANDA 1, as well as its officers, directors, agents, servants and employees agree not to 

challenge the validity or enforceability of any of the Panda RG Trademarks, or directly or 

5:09-cv-10384-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/21/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 142
2

indirectly assist or participate in any action contesting the validity or enforceability of any of the 

Panda RG Trademarks, except as required by Court Order or subpoena. 

 4. PANDA 1., including its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with them, are hereby permanently 

enjoined from the following: 

 a. Any use of any of the Panda RG Trademarks; 

 

 b. Within ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, from using 

PANDA, PANDA EXPRESS or a Panda Bear logo in any 

manner; and 

 c. Any use of any other name, symbol, logo, or mark that is 

confusingly similar to, or a colorable imitation of, PANDA, 

PANDA EXPRESS or a Panda Bear logo. 

 5. This Consent Decree and Injunction are subject to and pursuant to the terms and 

conditions of a Settlement Agreement executed by both PANDA 1 and Panda RG. 

 6. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for any enforcement issues 

related to this Consent Decree and Injunction, and the accompanying Settlement Agreement. 

 7. The terms of this Consent Decree and Injunction shall bind PANDA 1 and its 

successors in office, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in 

active concert or participation with them. 

5:09-cv-10384-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/21/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 143
3

 8. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees. No party is awarded 

damages. 

SO ORDERED: 

Date: April 21, 2009 s/John Corbett O’Meara

 United States District Judge 

5:09-cv-10384-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/21/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 144
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 158 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3375
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 158 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3376
EXHIBIT 32.1




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 Quarterly Report
of Bioheart, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officers knowledge that:


|(i) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Companys position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved
SEC comment, as more fully described in the Report); and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


|November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/
Karl E. Groth, Ph.D. Name: Karl E. Groth, Ph.D. Title: Chief Executive
Officer
|----------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

══════════ No. WR

- 49,763

- 02

══════════
EX PARTE MARTIN LUCIO SANTILLAN , Appl ic ant

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. W97

- 51514

- R(B) in the 265th District Court Dallas County

═══════════════════════════════════════ Y EAR Y , J., filed concurring opinion

. I have previously said that I am not opposed to granting conviction relief to a n applicant who can meet the standard set out in Ex parte Elizondo , 947 S.W. 2 d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). I just do not agree that such an applicant has necessarily established , by virtue of meeting that standard alone, that he is “actually innocent.” See Ex parte C haney , 563 S.W.3d 239, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“I do not regard the Elizondo standard as sufficientlySANTILLAN

– 2

rigorous to justify the nomenclature of ‘ actual innocence .’”). One who satisfies only th e Elizondo burden ( to establish only t hat, considering the new evidence presented, by clear and convincing evidence, no rational factfinder would now find the defendant guilty) has not necessarily proven that he is actually innocent

. Elizondo , 947 S.W.2d at 209. I n this case, however, it occurs to me that Applicant may well have made a “conclusive” showing that he is in fact innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. See Ex parte Cacy , 543 S.W.3d 802, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“My bottom line is that, though I remain content to grant habeas relief to any applicant who satisfies the Elizondo standard, I would avoid the label of actual innocence

— at least in the absence of evidence that conclusively proves, not just that a reasonable jury, by clear and convincing evidence, would not have convicted him, but that the applicant manifestly did not commit the offense .”) . Even so, the Court’s per curiam opinion today insists on declar ing Applicant to be “actually innocent” simply because he has satisfied t he standard established in Elizondo

. And f or that reason, regrettably, I cannot join the Court’s opinion

. Respectfully, even though I am convinced by the evidence presented that Applicant is in fact actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, I concur only in the result reached by the Court, not in its rationale

.

FILED : February 22, 2023 PUBLISH

.