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 NO: 09-20006-06

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

MICHAEL BELL,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On November 12, 2009, this case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on

November 13, 2009. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s

consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by

Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty is supported by an independent basis in fact

containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation

of a presentence investigation report.

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 151 Filed 11/13/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 446
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, Defendant be adjudged guilty and sentence be imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596

(6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties are

advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections

a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security,

474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: November 13, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: November 13, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 151 Filed 11/13/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 447
3

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB Doc # 151 Filed 11/13/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 448
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, David M. McClanahan, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: March 9, 2007                                                     /s/ David M. McClanahan   David M. McClanahan   President and Chief Executive Officer
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 of Tag Events Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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: February 14, 2008


/s/ Artiom Balykin
----------------------------------
Artiom Balykin
Principal Financial Officer
Principal Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CONSO PRODUCTS COMPANY AND ITS 
SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 28, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                         489,580
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,058,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                   310,876
<INVENTORY>                                 25,339,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,629,379
<PP&E>                                      25,048,565
<DEPRECIATION>                              (8,485,714)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,559,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,656,078
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,970,175
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,397,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,559,401
<SALES>                                     73,447,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            73,447,466
<CGS>                                       45,624,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,624,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,305,392
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             497,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,020,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,993,233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,027,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,027,170
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
        

</TABLE>
```

                                                                                                          Exhibit 8

                       Listing of Significant Subsidiaries of Kerzner International Limited
                                               at December 31, 2002

                                                                      Country
Name of Company                                                       of Incorporation
------------------------------------------------------------------    ----------------------------
Aberdeen Management Limited (1)                                       Channel Islands
Kerzner Hotels International (Bermuda), Limited (1)                   Bermuda
Kerzner International Bahamas Limited (2)                             The Bahamas
Kerzner International Management Limited (3)                          British Virgin Islands
Kerzner International North America, Inc. (4)                         United States
Kerzner International Timeshare Limited (5)                           The Bahamas
Kerzner Investments Palmilla, Inc. (6)                                The Bahamas
One&Only (Indian Ocean) Management Limited (7)                        British Virgin Islands
__________

      All of the above  subsidiaries  are wholly owned by Kerzner,  with the exception of One&Only  (Indian  Ocean)
      Management Limited, which is 80% owned by Kerzner and 20% owned by SRL.

(1)   The Company owns a 20.4% interest in SRL, of which 8.7% is held through Aberdeen  Management  Limited and the
      remaining 11.7% is held through  Kerzner Hotels International (Bermuda), Limited.

(2)   Owner  of  substantially  all  of the  Bahamian  subsidiaries.  Directly  or  indirectly  wholly  owns  eight
      subsidiaries, all of which are organized in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

(3)   Owner of the  management  agreement  for the Royal Mirage in Dubai.  Also receives  administrative  fees from
      One&Only (Indian Ocean) Management Limited related to Mauritius and Kanuhura management agreements.

(4)   Owner of  substantially  all of the U.S.  subsidiaries.  Directly or indirectly  wholly owns 22 subsidiaries,
      18 of which  are  organized  in the U.S.  and four of  which  are  organized  in  Mexico  and  relate  to the
      management and development of One&Only Palmilla Resort.

(5)   Owner of the 50% interest in Harborside.

(6)   Owner of the 50% interest in One&Only Palmilla Resort.

(7)   Owner of the five Mauritius management agreements and the Kanuhura management agreement.
```
Exhibit F

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 516-6 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 3
From·: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Team, 

Dennis Culloton [dc@cullotonstrategies.com] on behalf of Dennis Culloton 

Monday, May 02, 2011 2:14 PM 

Michael Lacey; emcnally@kasowitz.com; Jim Larkin 

Carl Ferrer; srajoo@kasowitz.com 

CNN response (PRIV. & CONF.) 

CNN May statement.doc 

If we decide to provide CNN with a statement for their rebroadcast ( or if we push for this 

to be provided on video) here is a first crack. 

We could issue this from Carl again or, if we want, we can issue it from Tracey as a 

backpage.com spokesperson. 

Please support the Bear Necessities Pediatric cancer Foundation, www.bearnecessities.org 

Dennis Culloton 

CEO and President 

Culloton Strategies 

Chicago Office 312.228.4780 

Mobile 630.699.8811 

Naperville Office 630.544.3387 

dc@cullotonstrategies.com 

http://www.cullotonstrategies.com 

-----Original Message-----

From: Michael Lacey [mailto:Michael.Lacey@VillageVoiceMedia.com] 

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 7:53 PM 

To: EMcNally@kasowitz.com; Jim Larkin 

Cc: Carl Ferrer; Dennis Culloton; SRajoo@kasowitz.com 

Subject: Re: Closing credits Re: copies of letters to CNN & transcripts (PRIV. & CONF.) 

folks 

running into a question as i look at the numbers. 

the reporter has overall FBI arrest numbers for all hookers. then FBI uses 1.5% to 2% to 

quantify juvenile arrests. 

but, when i look at the individual cities from this reporter for 14 cities the juvenile count 

is much lower than FBI's 1700 a year. 

this reporter, ellis, had 14 cities that had roughly 230 juvenile arrests for 2010 second 

reporter, kristin, had 12 cities with roughly 100 juvenile arrest for 2010 

26 cities, 300 plus juvenile arrests. 

how did FBI get to 1700? i think the 1.5% to 2% estimate by FBI is wildly rounding off. 

ive asked for explanation. 

1 

Confidential BP-AZGJ_01110837 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 516-6 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 3
lacey 

2 

Confidential BP-AZGJ_01110838 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 516-6 Filed 04/02/19 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ecoland
International, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending November 30, 2010, I, David
Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.        
 Such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending November 30, 2010, 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 such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending November 30, 2010,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Ecoland International, Inc.




Date: January 14, 2011




/s/ David WallaceDavid
      Wallace, Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland International,
      Inc.
----

----

|   | (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:  March 29, 2011 | /s/ Thomas Klein                 |   |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             | Thomas Klein                     |
|                             | Chief Executive Officer          |
|                             | (Principal Executive Officer)    |
|                             |                             |   |
| Dated:  March 29, 2011 | /s/ J. Roland Vetter             |   |
|                             | J. Roland Vetter                 |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer          |
|                             | (Principal Financial Officer and |
|                             | Principal Accounting Officer)    |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 2, 2015

No. 04-15-00389-CV

IN RE Eduardo LAGUERRE, 

Ralina Cardona, Aureo Cardona and Ray Mancera

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On June 29, 2015, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relators’ petition and is of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

Relator’s request for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS 

MOOT. Relator’s request for temporary relief is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on July 2, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-11299, styled Elia Mendoza and Rosa Rosales, Individually and 

as members of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Eduardo LaGuerre, Magdalena Rivera, 

Ralina Cardona, Baldomero Garza, Ray Mancera, Aureo Cardona and other un-named Defendants, pending in the 

131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr. presiding.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3854

To authorize the reburial in the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National

Cemetery of two unknown Americans who lost their lives during the

Civil War, one while serving in the Union Army of the United States

and the other while serving in the Army of the Confederate States

of America, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 18, 1996

Mr. KASICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Veterans Affairs

A BILL

To authorize the reburial in the Memorial Amphitheater at

Arlington National Cemetery of two unknown Americans

who lost their lives during the Civil War, one while

serving in the Union Army of the United States and

the other while serving in the Army of the Confederate

States of America, and for other purposes.

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

•HR 3854 IH

1 SECTION 1. REBURIAL OF UNKNOWN SOLDIERS FROM

2 CIVIL WAR IN THE MEMORIAL AMPHI3 THEATER OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEME4 TERY.

5 The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed

6 to cause to be brought from a National Cemetery for bur7 ial in the Memorial Amphitheater of the National Ceme8 tery at Arlington, Virginia, the remains of—

9 (1) an American who was a member of the

10 Union Army of the United States, who served in the

11 Civil War of 1861 through 1865 who lost his life

12 during the Civil War, and whose identity has not

13 been established; and

14 (2) an American who was a member of the

15 Army of the Confederate States of America, who

16 served in the Civil War of 1861 through 1865 who

17 lost his life during the Civil War, and whose identity

18 has not been established.

19 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

20 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

21 as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this

22 Act.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3871

To waive temporarily the Medicaid enrollment composition rule for certain

health maintenance organizations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 23, 1996

Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. GREENWOOD, and Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Commerce

A BILL

To waive temporarily the Medicaid enrollment composition

rule for certain health maintenance organizations.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF 75/25 MEDICAID ENROLLMENT

4 RULE FOR CERTAIN MANAGED CARE ORGANI5 ZATIONS.

6 The requirement of section 1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) of the

7 Social Security Act is waived—

8 (1) with respect to Catholic Health Services

9 Plan of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. (doing business

10 as Fidelis Health Plan) and Managed Healthcare
2

•HR 3871 IH

1 Systems of New York, Inc., for contract periods

2 through January 1, 1999, and

3 (2) with respect to Health Partners of Philadel4 phia, Inc., for contract periods through December

5 31, 1999.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20225

SCOTT SAMONEK,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION FOR NOTICE OF 404(B) EVIDENCE AND BRADY MATERIALS

Defendant Scott Samonek has filed the above-captioned motion but has failed to

indicate whether or not the contemplated relief would be agreed to by the Government. 

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a) states as follows:

(1) The movant must ascertain whether the contemplated motion . . . will

be opposed. If the movant obtains concurrence, the parties may make the

subject matter of the contemplated motion or request a matter of record by

stipulated order.

(2) If concurrence is not obtained, the motion or request must state:

(A) there was a conference between the attorneys or

unrepresented parties in which the movant explained the

nature of the motion or request and its legal basis and

requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought;

or

(B) despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or

request, the movant was unable to conduct a conference.

(3) The court may tax costs for unreasonable withholding of consent.

Rule 7.1 plainly requires that the movant make clear that it has conducted the

required pre-filing conference in which the nature of the contemplated motion was

explained or, in the alternative, what unsuccessful efforts were made to engage in such

a conference. 

2:09-cr-20225-RHC-PJK Doc # 24 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 79
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20225.SAMONEK.NoConcurrence.npk.wpd

2

No exception is made for criminal cases. See E.D. Mich. LR 12.1(a). If the

Government were to agree, the motion would be mooted. The court discourages motion

practice that may be unnecessary and wasteful of court and attorney time. In any

event, the court does not detect a basis in Rule 404 on which to build a pretrial motion,

in that the Rule speaks only of a “request” made by “the accused. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s “Motion for Notice of 404(b) Evidence and

Brady Materials” [Dkt. # 23] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 18, 2009

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

on this date, November 18, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cr-20225-RHC-PJK Doc # 24 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 80