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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MAZEN SHWEIKA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 09-cv-11781 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and 

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND 

IMMIGRATION SERVICE, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the order granting Plaintiff’s petition for naturalization entered on this 

date, 

 It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff and 

against Defendant. 

 

Dated: March 24, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

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 March 24, 2017. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

Case 1:09-cv-11781-TLL-CEB ECF No. 77, PageID.933 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,370
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                      1,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,795
<PP&E>                                           2,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                     548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,496
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,123
<SALES>                                         12,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,181
<CGS>                                            7,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,245
<INCOME-TAX>                                       460
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary R. GILTNER, Appellant.

No. 69283.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

Nov. 5, 1996.

William C. Mcllroy, Mcllroy and Millan, Bowling Green, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, C.J., and DOWD and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Gary R. Giltner, appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury for the class B felony of acting in concert with another to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211, RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM HELMER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRIAN GUEST, ED POKRZYWNICKI, 

and DAVE STENZEL 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 09-cv-11697 

Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF No. 163) 

 This prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit, currently scheduled for trial on May 5, 

2015, arises from the alleged assault of Plaintiff William Helmer by a law 

enforcement official while Plaintiff was in custody. Presently before the Court 

Plaintiff’s motion in limine seeking an order preventing Defendants from 

introducing evidence, testimony, or witnesses regarding Plaintiff’s present 

conviction. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 163.) This motion, filed by Plaintiff while he 

was proceeding pro se, is substantially similar to a motion in limine filed by 

Plaintiff’s recently-appointed counsel. 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to exclude any evidence 

pertaining to his offense of conviction, contending that any such evidence would 

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 183 Filed 03/31/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1711
2 

be unduly prejudicial. Plaintiff further contends that “his present conviction has 

nothing to do with whether Deputy Guest assaulted Plaintiff.” (Pl.’s Mot. 1.) 

Because Plaintiff’s attorneys have since filed another motion in limine on the same 

subject, the Court will deny the instant motion to the extent it addresses the 

admissibility of Plaintiff’s offense of conviction. 

Plaintiff also complains that two witnesses who were not present in the 

courthouse on the date of the alleged assault – Darci Dearing and former Deputy 

Brian Harris – are listed as potential defense witnesses. As Defendants indicate in 

their response to the motion, Ms. Dearing and Mr. Harris “are listed as possible 

impeachment or rebuttal witnesses should th[eir] testimony be necessary. They are 

both listed as ‘may call’ witnesses in the Proposed Joint Final Pre-Trial Order” to 

which Plaintiff is referring. (Defs.’ Resp. 2, ECF No. 168.) Because the Court’s 

scheduling Order requires the inclusion of all potential witnesses, including 

rebuttal witnesses if their testimony could have been “reasonably anticipated[,]” 

there is nothing improper about listing the two challenged witnesses at this 

juncture. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 163) is 

DENIED. 

Dated: March 31, 2015 

 

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 183 Filed 03/31/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1712
3 

 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Gerald J. Gleeson, II 

Robert E. Murkowski 

D. Randall Gilmer 

G. Gus Morris

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 183 Filed 03/31/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1713
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

I, Robert Auduon, certify, 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,
Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Arkson
Nutraceuticals, Inc.


Date: 5/11/09                               By: /s/ Robert Auduon
                                               --------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert Auduon
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7411

RICHARD A. GRAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-95-273-2)

Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994),

amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op

Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate.

We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gray

v. Angelone, No. CA-95-273-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 33-91218, Form S-3 No. 333-20143, Form S-8 No. 333-3310 and Form
S-8 No. 333-42735) of Jameson Inns, Inc. of our reports dated February 12, 1998,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Jameson
Inns, Inc. and the financial statements of Jameson Operating Company II, LLC and
its predecessor Jameson Operating Company included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Jameson Inns, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                                              Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
February 18, 1998
[CIK]       0000914670
[NAME]      CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION


                                   RESOLUTION


A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A PRISON FACILITY IN EAGLE LAKE
TEXAS, AND PLEDGING THE COOPERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE
LAKE, TEXAS TO CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION IN SAID CONSTRUCTION.

WHEREAS, the City of Eagle Lake, Texas has aggressively pursued the
construction of a prison in the City of Eagle Lake; and

WHEREAS, the construction of a prison in Eagle Lake, Colorado County, Texas
would provide an economic boost to the area by providing jobs to area
taxpaying citizens and by providing additional business for local business
establishments; and

WHEREAS, the prison facility, proposed for the City of Eagle Lake, will meet
all requirements and specifications as set forth by the State of Texas:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eagle
Lake, hereby requests Correctional Services Corporation to locate a new 1,000
bed prison facility in Eagle Lake, Colorado County, Texas; and

FURTHER, that the City of Eagle Lake, will deal exclusively with Correctional
Services Corporation, so long as Correctional Services Corporation maintains a
commitment to build a 1,000 bed prison in the City of Eagle Lake, and

FURTHER, that the City Council of the City of Eagle Lake will enter into
inter-local agreements with other jurisdictions in order to obtain inmates for
the prison facility should the Texas Department of Criminal Justice not be
able to fill all 1,000 beds, and

FURTHER, that the City Council of the city of Eagle Lake will fulfill all of
the conditions specified by Mr. Michael E. Garretson, in his letter of
July 14, 1997, by: (1) locating an acceptable site for a 1,000 bed prison, and
(2) insure proper zoning, should the City of Eagle Lake decide to adopt a
zoning ordinance prior to the construction of a prison, such ordinance will
provide for proper zoning of the prison site as of the effective date of any
such ordinance, and (3) will bring adequate water and sewer services to the
site, and (4) has already provided the means for the issuance of tax exempt
bonds to finance the construction of a prison, through the creation of the
Eagle Lake Correctional Development Corporation, and

FURTHER, that the City Council of the City of Eagle Lake commits by the
passage of this resolution that it will work diligently in cooperation with
Correctional Services Corporation to facilitate the construction and operation
of said prison in Eagle Lake, Colorado County, Texas.

PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Eagle Lake, this 22nd
day of July, 1997.

                                             ATTEST:
By:  \s\ David Mann                          \s\ Lucille Perry
     David Mann, Mayor                       Lucille Perry, City Secretary
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of Systematic Momentum II LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Paul Morton, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Manager of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC,the manager of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:      | May 15, 2009                               |       |
|------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------|
|       |                                            |       |
| By:        | /s/ Paul Morton                                 |       |
|       | Paul  Morton                                    |       |
|       | Chief  Executive Officer, President and Manager |       |
| ** ** | **(Principal Executive Officer)**               | ** ** |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Counter-Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Counter-Defendant,

AND

ROBOTIC VISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

and FREDERIC, WEIDINGER,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 11-12909

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ADIL SHAFI,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

On June 18, 2012 Adil Shafi filed a motion to continue the stay and adjourn the

telephone status conference.

Mr. Shafi’s motion is GRANTED. These matters remain STAYED. The Court

will hold a telephone status conference on August 6, 2012 at 10:00 am. The Court will

initiate the conference call.

IT IS ORDERED.

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: June 26, 2012

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 138 Filed 06/26/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3169
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

June 26, 2012.

S/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 138 Filed 06/26/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3170
================================================================================

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 Glance, Inc. (the "Company") on  Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2008, 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:  October 14, 2008

/s/ Moneca Rayner
---------------------------
Moneca Rayner
President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Director
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

I, John W. Combs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.



|                        |  |        |  |                                                                              
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 9, 2009 |  | By:    |  | /s/ John W. Combs                                                            
|                        |  | Name:  |  | John W. Combs                                                                
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenced into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made on or before or
after the date of this Report), irrespective at any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Abatement Order filed May 15, 2013

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00015-CV

____________

MANZOOR MEMON, Appellant

V.

HAROON SHAIKH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-28636

ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on May 10, 2013 that appellant is in bankruptcy. Tex. R. 

App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on May 7, 2013, Manzoor Memon petitioned 

for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Texas under case number 13-32851. A bankruptcy suspends 

the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy petition is filed until the appellate 

court reinstates the appeal in accordance with federal law. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.
When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or 

terminated the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. 

A party filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is 

required from this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 02, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 02, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0399. REDMOND PARK HOSPITAL, LLC d/b/a REDMOND REGIONAL 

MEDICAL CENTER v. GA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2019CV329414
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

28, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00939-CV

RICHARD REUTER, KENNETH SHEPHERD, AND AXM SYSTEMS, 

LLC, Appellants

V.

INDUSTRIAL SPECIALISTS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-CV-1215

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 13, 2019. On January 9, 

2020, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
[Cite as Jabr v. Disciplinary Counsel, 2021-Ohio-646.]

{¶1} On January 26, 2021, a special master issued a report and recommendation 

in this public-records dispute brought under R.C. 2743.75. The special master 

recommends that the court (1) find it lacks -matter jurisdiction over requester’s claim, (2) 

grant respondent’s motion to dismiss, and (3) assess costs to requester. 

{¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the special master’s report 

and recommendation. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects, 

this court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and 

recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect 

evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” The court finds no error of law 

or other defect is evident on the face of the special master’s report and 

recommendation. The court therefore adopts the report and recommendation, grants 

requester’s motion to dismiss, and dismisses requester’s claim without prejudice. Court 

TAREQ R. JABR 

 Requester 

 v. 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2020-00596PQ 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2020-00596PQ -2- ENTRY 

costs are assessed to requester. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this 

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK E. SHEERAN 

Judge 

Filed February 16, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/8/21