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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: QUANG D. LY

_______________________________________/

INTERNATIONAL NOODLES, LLC,

Appellant, Bankruptcy No. 08-03033

HON. DANIEL S. OPPERMAN

vs. Case No. 09-CV-11402 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

QUANG D. LY,

Appellee.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

On April 15, 2009, International Noodles, LLC filed a notice of appeal from

Bankruptcy Judge Daniel Opperman's April 1, 2009 Preference Avoidance Judgment in

adversary proceeding 08-03033 in favor of the Debtor in Possession, Quang D. Ly and

against International Noodles in the amount of $5,000. This Court was assigned the

appeal. There has been no activity in the file since the filing of the notice of appeal.

Bankruptcy Rule 8006 required International Noodles to file with the clerk and appellee

Quang D. Ly, within 10 days or by May 4, 2009, a designation of the items to be included

in the record and a statement of the issues to be presented on appeal. International

Noodles has filed nothing since April 15, 2009. 

On September 23, 2009 this Court issued an order to show cause to appellant

International Noodles. The Court then discovered that appellant’s attorney, Jeffrey B.

Bershad, failed to provide the Court with a correct e-mail address. Perhaps due to this

2:09-cv-11402-GCS-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 10/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 13
2

failure on the part of Mr. Bershad, appellant did not comply with the show cause order in

a timely manner. The Court thereafter issued a second order to show cause, which was

served upon Mr. Bershad by regular mail, the e-mail address provided to the Court, and an

additional e-mail address listed in the Michigan Bar Journal Directory for 2009. Appellant

was ordered to respond in writing on or before October 16, 2009, addressing the issue of

why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. No such response was

filed. Now, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the above-captioned appeal is DISMISSED for

lack of prosecution.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 20, 2009

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

October 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11402-GCS-DAS Doc # 5 Filed 10/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 14
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel: MIDARP.                    

*Date:*                         August 19, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nadine Rogers, PhD., Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-402-2105,                         *rogersn2@nida.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health HHS)

Dated: July 29, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-17819 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.1





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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mass Hysteria Entertainment Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Grodnik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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.








/s/ Daniel Grodnik


__________________________


Daniel Grodnik,


President


(Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer)


April 19, 2011
Exhibit No. 16
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
Form 10-K
File No. 0-23170

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

Name                                                        State or
                                                          Jurisdiction

(1)  Headway Corporate Staffing Services, Inc. ("HCSS")     Delaware
(2)  HCSS East, Inc. ("East")                               Delaware
(3)  HCSS West, Inc. ("West")                               Delaware
(4)  HCSS Holdings, Inc.                                    Delaware
(5)  Headway Corporate Staffing Service of New york, Inc.   New York
     (a subsidiary of HCSS)
(6)  Corporate Staff Administration, Inc. (a subsidiary     New York
     of HCSS)
(7)  Certified Technical Staffing, Inc. (a subsidiary       New York
     of HCSS)
(8)  Headway Corporate Staffing Services of North           Delaware
     Carolina, Inc. (a subsidiary of HCSS)
(9)  Headway Corporate Staffing Services of                 Delaware
     Connecticut, Inc. (a subsidiary of HCSS)
(10) ASA Personnel Services, L.L.C. (a subsidiary of HCSS)  Delaware
(11) Cheney Associates, L.L.C. (as subsidiary  of East)     Delaware
(12) Headway Corporate Staffing Services of Florida, L.L.C. Delaware
     (a subsidiary of East)
(13) Headway Corporate Staffing Services of New             Delaware
     Jersey, L.L.C. (a subsidiary of East)
(14) Headway Technology Resources of Texas, L.L.C.          Delaware
     (a subsidiary of East)
(15) Headway Corporate Staffing Services of                 Delaware
     California One, L.L.C. (a subsidiary of West)
(16) Headway Corporate Staffing Services of                 Delaware
     California Two, L.L.C. (a subsidiary of West)
(17) Carlyle Group, Ltd.                                    Illinois
(18) Whitney Partners, L.L.C. ("Whitney")                   Delaware
(19) Tyzack Holdings Limited ("Tyzack")                     United Kingdom
(20) The Whitney Group (Europe) Limited                     United Kingfom
     (a subsidiary of Tyzack)
(21) Whitney Asia PTE Ltd. (a subsidiary of Whitney)        Singapore
(22) The Whitney Group (Asia) Limited                       Hong Kong



                               E-1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

_____________________________________ 

ANNE COLE, an individual, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:09-cv-11893 

vs. Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

 

ST. CLAIR MEDICAL CENTER, P.C., 

A Domestic Professional Service Corporation, 

Operating Under the Assumed Name of 

Greater Yale Medical Clinic, 

Defendant. 

_____________________________________ 

DAVID A. NACHT (P47034) 

Nacht & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

101 N. Main Street, Suite 555 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 

(734) 663-7550 

GARY A. FLETCHER (P26823) 

TODD J. SHOUDY (P41895) 

Fletcher Fealko Shoudy & Moeller, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

522 Michigan Street 

Port Huron, Michigan 48060 

(810) 987-8444 

_____________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 At a session of said Court, held in the United States District Court, 

 Eastern District of Michigan, on the 8th day of September, 2009. 

 PRESENT: HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 United States District Court Judge 

 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to settle the above-entitled case. 

2:09-cv-11893-PJD-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 26
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That the above-entitled matter be 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either party. This is a final order and resolves all 

outstanding claims in this matter. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: September 8, 2009 

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

September 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

 

Stipulated and Approved for Entry: 

/s/ David A. Nacht (with consent)______ /s/ Todd J. Shoudy (with consent)________ 

David A. Nacht (P47034) Todd J. Shoudy (P41895) 

Nacht & Associates, P.C. Fletcher Fealko Shoudy & Moeller, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 

101 N. Main Street, Suite 555 522 Michigan Street 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Port Huron, Michigan 48060 

(734) 663-7550 (810) 987-8444 

dnacht@nachtlaw.com tshoudy@fletcherfealko.com

2:09-cv-11893-PJD-MKM Doc # 8 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-04

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

FERNANDO RUELAS-TAPIA,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

All parties having signed a consent, on April 21, 2009, this Defendant was referred to

the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for the

purpose of receiving Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel,

appeared before me on April 21, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense to which he pled 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.

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 95 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 287
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, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence 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: April 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

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

served on Shane Waller and Eric Proschek, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: April 22, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 95 Filed 04/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 288
---

Exhibit 32.1

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of XTOL Energy Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 my 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: October 22, 2007 | /s/ Gary Chayko                   
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                        | Gary Chayko                       
|                        | President, Chief Executive Officer

---
No. 72-6117.

#### Owens *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS BLUMENTHAL,

180578

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2:08-cv-14858

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

MICHAEL CURLEY,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S “MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL/REHEARING”

On December 7, 2011, the Court denied Petitioner Thomas Blumenthal’s pro se Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Blumenthal v. Curley, No. 2:08-cv14858, 2011 WL 6090183 (E. D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2011). Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s

“Motion for New Trial/Rehearing,” filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b) provides that “[a] motion for a new trial must be

filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” No trial occurred in this case. Based

upon the relief Petitioner seeks, the Court construes his Motion as having been filed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which concerns Motions to Alter or Amend a Judgment.

A Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, filed under Rule 59(e), is “entrusted to the

court’s sound discretion.” Keweenaw Bay Indian Comty. v. United States, 940 F.Supp. 1139,

1140 (W.D. Mich. 1996) (citing Huff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982)). 

Rule 59(e) motions are generally granted when one of the following circumstances arises:

(1) because of an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) because evidence

not previously available has become available; or (3) necessity to correct a clear

error of law or prevent manifest injustice.

Nagle Indus., Inc. v . Ford Motor Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (citing Keweenaw

2:08-cv-14858-VAR-RSW Doc # 27 Filed 01/30/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 530
2

Bay, 940 F. Supp. at 1141). “Such motions, however, are ‘not intended as a vehicle to relitigate

previously considered issues;’ ‘should not be utilized to submit evidence which could have been

previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence;’ and are not the proper vehicle to

attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment ‘by offering the same arguments previously

presented.’” Id. (quoting Keweenaw Bay, 904 F. Supp. at 1141).

None of the arguments set forth by Petitioner in support of his Motion satisfy the

standards under which Rule 59(e) Motions may be granted. Petitioner simply states that “an

improper standard was used in deciding his [P]etition for [W]rit of [H]abeas [C]orpus.” 

Petitioner’s Motion, at 1. 

For the reasons stated, the Court denies Petitioner’s “Motion for New Trial/Rehearing”

[dkt. # 26].

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: January 30, 2012

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Thomas Blumenthal by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on January 30, 2012.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14858-VAR-RSW Doc # 27 Filed 01/30/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 531
vyey_ex1011.htm


EXHIBIT 10.11


 








INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT







We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of No. 333-194427 on Form S-8 of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated November 12, 2013, with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Victory Energy Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Victory Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2013.







/s/ Marcum llp







Marcum llp


Los Angeles


April XX, 2014
**Exhibit 15.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (No. 333-107102 on Form S-8) pertaining to the Ispat International N.V. Global Stock Option Plan, of our report dated February 8, 2005, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Ispat Iscor Limited andsubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Mittal Steel Company N.V. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Pretoria, South Africa 

June 28, 2007 

/s/ KPMG Inc.
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 Diamond Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vince Leitao, Chief Executive 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 23rd day of August, 2010.





VINCE LEITAO

Vince Leitao

Chief Executive Officer
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 43 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MGI DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY S.A., 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DUPLO U.S.A. CORP., 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1640

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 8:22-cv-00979-DOCKES, Judge David O. Carter.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 24-1640 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 07/22/2024
2 MGI DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY S.A. V. DUPLO U.S.A. CORP.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

July 22, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 22, 2024

Case: 24-1640 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 07/22/2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR PREVENTIVE

MEDICINE, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v. Case No. 09-11195

OAKSTONE PUBLISHING, LLC,

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

 /

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND

SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

On April 29, 2010, the court conducted a settlement conference with principals

and counsel for both parties regarding the above-captioned case. Although the parties

did not come to a resolution during the conference, it was apparent that continued

settlement discussions may allow the parties to settle this case. Accordingly, the parties

will continue to negotiate over the next two weeks. The court is satisfied that the parties

will use this time productively. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that all formal proceedings in this matter are STAYED pending

settlement negotiations between the parties. The parties are instructed to notify the

court immediately if they have reached a complete resolution to this matter or if their

negotiations have halted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will participate in a telephone status

conference on May 14, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. The court will initiate the telephone call. If,

at that time, the parties have failed to negotiate a settlement, the court will lift the stay;
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-11195.AIPM.Stay.bsc.wpd

2

the court will adjust the deadlines for the submission of trial materials; and the case will

proceed rapidly to trial. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 4, 2010

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

on this date, May 4, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522