alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135646 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135646 COA: 281720 Wayne CC: 04-009591-FC JESSIE JEROME LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
|  | (1)  | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                     |   |                                                |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   |                                                |   |
| Dated:  December      15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Dr.      Marvin A. Sackner                 |   |
|                                     |   | Dr.      Marvin A. Sackner, Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                     |   |                                                |   |

----
Exhibit 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  /s/ James E. Berry, II
    
    January 27, 2011James E. Berry II, Director/s/ Tom D. Berry
    
    January 27, 2011Tom D. Berry, Director/s/ Joe Berry Cannon
    
    January 27, 2011Joe Berry Cannon, Director/s/ John Cohlmia
    
    January 27, 2011John Cohlmia, Director/s/ David S. Crockett Jr.
    
    January 27, 2011David S. Crockett Jr., Director/s/ J. Berry Harrison
    
    January 27, 2011J. Berry Harrison, Director/s/ James M. Johnson
    
    January 27, 2011James M. Johnson, Director/s/ David P. Lambert
    
    January 27, 2011David P. Lambert, Director/s/ Linford R. Pitts
    
    January 27, 2011Linford R. Pitts, Director/s/ Robert B. Rodgers
    
    January 27, 2011Robert B. Rodgers, Director/s/ Russell W. Teubner
    
    January 27, 2011Russell W. Teubner, Director
 107
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SUZANNE DHOOGHE,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 09-12630

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

McLAREN HEALTH SERVICES, d/b/a

McLaren Regional Medical Ser

Defendants. 

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

7/12/2010, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is adopted and entered as the findings and conclusions

of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: July 30, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on July 30,

2010.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk
#### RADER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6482.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 9, 1938.

Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, N. J., for appellant.

John J. Quinn, U. S. Atty., of Red Bank, N. J., and William F. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Trenton, N. J.

Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

DICKINSON, District Judge.

This is an illicit still charge of the usual type. There was ample evidence that the offense had been committed. The main question is whether there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict that the defendant was a guilty participant in the setting up of the still or in its operation. The instructions given the jury were in full accord with the law of the case, and the question of guilt fairly submitted to the jury. The real question is whether there should have been a directed verdict. The only evidence against this defendant was testimony that he had stated his willingness to contribute to the capital of the illicit project, and that he had gone in an automobile with his brother who inspected the proposed site for the still. There was no evidence that the defendant had' in fact contributed to the capital and in truth testimony introduced by the prosecution that he had not. There was no evidence that he had inspected the site or had a hand in its selection. The evidence against him was that he had gone in the automobile, but had remained in it. We do not think this evidence warranted a finding (1) that he had been in the possession of a set-up still which he had failed to register, or (2) had engaged in the business of a distiller without giving the notice required by law. There was no conspiracy count in the indictment.

The eighth assignment of error is sustained, and the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed are reversed.
wdka_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 


Consilium Investment Management, LLC


 


3101 N. Federal Highway, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306


Tel: +1 (954) 315-9380 Fax: +1 (954) 779-1803


www.consimllc.com


 


April 21, 2014







Mr. Michael Romer Interim CEO


Panache Beverage, Inc. 


150 5th Avenue, 3rd Floor 


New York, NY  10010


 


VIA EMAIL


 


Dear Mr. Romer:


 


I am writing to you in reference to the Financial Advisor Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated November 28, 2012 by and between Panache Beverage, Inc. and Consilium Investment Management, LLC (“Consilium”). Please be advised that Consilium is today exercising its right under paragraph 7 of the Agreement to unilaterally terminate, and with this letter, providing the required 30-day notice.


 


Given Panache Beverage, Inc.’s current financial circumstances, I respectfully request the waiver of the notice period by mutual consent. Please provide your response in the affirmative if you are in agreement.


 

















Yours sincerely,


Charles T. Cassel, III Managing Director


Consilium Investment Management, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF OUTSTATE

MICHIGAN TROWEL TRADES

HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-CV-12856

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ABBOTT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 32]

On March 18, 2010, this court entered an opinion and order denying plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and the

court requested and received a response from defendant. The court granted plaintiffs’

motion for reconsideration on May 18, 2010. On June 1, 2010, defendant filed a motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan provides:

[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same

issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable

implication, shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a

palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but

also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a

correction thereof.

The Court finds that defendant’s motion simply reiterates earlier arguments which

have been previously considered and addressed. Now, therefore,
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

So ordered.

Dated: July 27, 2010

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

July 27, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.11.6


 


Tue 2/18/2014 6:24 AM


 


Julian,


 


The Settlement Date of December 31, 2013 referenced in both the Third Payment Moratorium & Settlement Agreement dated July 29, 2013 and the Subscription Agreement dated November 1, 2013, each of which was executed by Oxysure Systems, Inc. and VenCore Solutions LLC, is hereby extended to April 1, 2014.


 


Jim Johnson


 


VenCore Solutions LLC dba Vencore Capital


 


Phone:   (360) 852-0633


 


Email:  jim@ven-core.com or jim@vencorecapital.com


 


Corporate Offices:


 


4500 SW Kruse Way, Suite 170


 


Lake Oswego, OR 97035
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District

1

Judge for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 96-1817

___________

Michael A. Weed, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

International Business *

Machines Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 4, 1996

 Filed: October 10, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael A. Weed filed an action in November 1995, claiming that his

1991 discharge from International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)

constituted a breach of his employment contract, and that IBM had violated

the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (Polygraph Act), 29 U.S.C.

§§ 2001-2009 (1994). The polygraph claims were based on events that took

place during the discovery stage of an earlier federal lawsuit Weed had

filed against IBM. Weed subsequently filed an amended complaint adding

three additional claims based on the circumstances surrounding his

separation from IBM. The District Court granted IBM summary judgment.

1

Weed appeals, arguing that the District Court should not
-2-

have treated IBM's motion as one for summary judgment; that the Court erred

when it held his claims were barred by res judicata and collateral

estoppel; and that he stated a claim under the Polygraph Act.

We conclude the District Court correctly treated IBM's motion to

dismiss as one for summary judgment, because the parties submitted and the

Court considered materials outside the pleadings. We agree with the

District Court that res judicata barred Weed's separation-related claims,

including those claims he sought to add in his amended complaint. See Weed

v. International Business Machs. Corp., No. 95-1099, 1995 WL 437937, at *1

(8th Cir. July 26, 1995) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming grants of

summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law in case based on Weed's

separation from IBM), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 975 (1996). We also agree

with the District Court that Weed failed to state a claim under the

Polygraph Act.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael E. Healy, 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 fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2008 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: February 9, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ MICHAEL E. HEALY
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                |  | Michael E. Healy                                                    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and
Financial Officer)
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 PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory S. Weishar, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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, as amended, and

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



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    GREGORY S.
WEISHAR                                          
|Gregory S. Weishar
Chief Executive Officer and Director
May 7, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE BELLA COMPANY, INC., a 

Michigan Corporation, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-11517

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

SALONQUEST, LLC, and Ohio 

Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING SHOW CAUSE ORDER

On April 27, 2009, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to plead the citizenship of the members of

Defendant, a limited liability company. Plaintiff answered the show cause order and has

represented that, upon information and belief, Defendant’s members are Dennis Lubin,

Scott Miller, George Stasick and Beauty Systems Group, LLC (BSG). Plaintiff further

states that Defendant’s individual members are, upon information and belief, all citizens

of Ohio and that BSG is a Delaware limited liability company, whose principal place of

business is in Texas and whose sole member (Gary Winterhalter) is a citizen of Texas. 

Plaintiff is a Michigan corporation, whose principal place of business is in

Michigan. Because none of Defendant’s members appear to be citizens of Michigan,

complete diversity exists and dismissal without prejudice is unwarranted at this time. 

2:09-cv-11517-GCS-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 161
2

Accordingly, the order to show cause hereby is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 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

May 13, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11517-GCS-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 162
Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 Case No. CR-18-422-SMB

NOTICE OF JOINDER

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the Defendant, Joye Vaught, through her 

attorney, Joy Bertrand, hereby joins the Defendant Andrew Padilla’s Motion to 

Continue. (ECF Doc. 628) In doing so, she adopts the facts and legal arguments 

presented in this Motion. 

Ms. Vaught’s Counsel is in the same situation as Mr. Padilla, having been 

appointed under the Criminal Justice Act on or about May 3, 2019. Like Mr. 

Padilla’s Counsel, Ms. Vaught also faces the daunting task of reviewing and 

analyzing what is estimated to be more than ten million pages of documents. 

Like Mr. Padilla’s Counsel, Undersigned Counsel also must familiarize herself 

Joy Bertrand, Esq.

PO Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Telephone: 602-374-5321

Fax: 480-361-4694

joyous@mailbag.com

www.joybertrandlaw.com

Arizona State Bar No. 024181

ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 637 Filed 06/17/19 Page 1 of 3
Page 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

with ancillary litigation in this District, the Central District of California, and 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Even if Undersigned Counsel spent every 

working hour, forty hours per week, for the next 31 weeks, she would have to 

read 8,065 pages per hour. Even with the assistance of search tools and access to 

data stored on Relativity, that review is impossible in the short time set in the 

current scheduling order.

Ms. Vaught hereby joins Mr. Padilla’s Motion and asks this Court to vacate 

the current trial date and to set a scheduling conference to address the upcoming 

deadlines set forth in the Court’s May 1, 2018 Order. (ECF Doc. 131)

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this Seventeenth day of June, 2019.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 637 Filed 06/17/19 Page 2 of 3
Page 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On June 17, 2019, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, filed the 

foregoing with the Arizona District Court’s electronic filing system. Based on 

my training and experience with electronic filing in the federal courts, it is my 

understanding that a copy of this pleading will be electronically served upon 

opposing counsel and co-defendants’ counsel, upon its submission to the Court. 

Respectfully submitted this Seventeenth day of June, 2019.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 637 Filed 06/17/19 Page 3 of 3
<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 No. S-8 No. 333-3310 and
Form No. S-8 333-42735) of Jameson Inns, Inc. of our reports dated February 8,
2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule III of
Jameson Inns, Inc. and March 7, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Jameson Hospitality, LLC included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Jameson Inns, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1




Certification of Chief Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer





I, Anthony F. Rotondo, 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, this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Surgical Partners Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o (d)) and that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Surgical Partners Inc.




/s/ Anthony F. RotondoBy: Anthony F. RotondoTitle:   President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





Date: August 15, 2011





I, Don Knight, 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, this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Surgical Partners Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o (d)) and that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Surgical Partners Inc.





/s/ Don KnightBy: Don KnightTitle:   Vice President, Finance(Principal Accounting and Financial

Officer)





Date: August 15, 2011
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 

Dance Biopharm Inc. 
 2 Mint Plaza,
#804 
 San Francisco, CA 94103 
 This Lease is
made effective the 1st day of May 2013 by and between John Patton (hereinafter “Landlord”) and Dance Biopharm Inc. (hereinafter “Tenant”). In consideration for the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. The Landlord leases to the Tenant, and the Tenant rents from the Landlord the
following described premises: 2 Mint Plaza, #804 and #802 San F!ancisco, CA 94103 
 2. The term of the Lease shall be for two years commencing 1 May 2013
and with an indefinite ending. 
 3. The Tenant shall pay to Landlord as rent $3,200 per month in equal monthly installments. 

4. Tenant shall use and occupy the premises only as administrative headquarters subject at all times to the approval of the Landlord. 

5. The Tenant shall not make any alterations, additions or improvements to the premises without the prior written consent of the Landlord. 

6. The Landlord, at his own expense, shall furnish all utilities and janitorial services for the benefit of the Tenant. 

7. The Tenant, at his own expense, shall furnish the following: Internet service, food, drinks and flowers for business meetings. 

8. The Landlord shall purchase, at his own expense, fire and hazard insurance for the premises and this shall continue in force and effect throughout the
Lease term hereof. 
 9. The Tenant shall not permit or commit waste to the premises. 

10. The Tenant shall comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances codes and laws of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the premises. 

11. The Tenant shall not permit or engage in any activity that will effect an increase in the rate of insurance for the Building in which the premises is
contained nor shall the Tenant permit or commit any nuisance thereon. 
 12. The Tenant shall not sublet or assign the premises nor allow any other person
or business to use or occupy the premises without the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. 







 13. At the end of the term of this Lease, the Tenant shall surrender and deliver up the premises in the same
condition (subject to any additions, alterations or improvements, if any) as presently exists, reasonable wear and tear excluded. 
 14. Upon default in any
term or condition of this Lease, the Landlord shall have the right to undertake any or all other remedies permitted by Law. 
 15. This Lease shall be
binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns. 
 Signed this 22 day of July (Month)
2013 (Year) 
  

	
	 /s/ Samantha Miller

	Tenant

  

	
	 /s/ John S. Patton

	Landlord
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.2 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.3 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.4 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.5 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.6 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.7 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:08-mc-51086-TLL ECF No. 1 filed 11/10/08 PageID.8 Page 8 of 8