alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7119

HERMAN E. HARSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

P. L. HUFFMAN; JIMMY L. HYLTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7652

HERMAN E. HARSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHRIS PETERSON; PRINCIPAL UMBERGER; MR. ST. JOHN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-788-R, CA-94-175)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1996
2

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman E. Harston, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Peter Duane Vieth,

WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals Appellant appeals from the

district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harston v. Huffman,

No. CA-94-788-R; Harston v. Peterson, No. CA-94-175 (W.D. Va. July

11, 1995; June 15, 1995, and Oct. 10, 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.

AFFIRMED
3
Exhibit No. 99.1
Form 10-K
Headway Corporate Resources, Inc.
File No. 1-16025

          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 Annual Report of Headway Corporate  Resources,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Barry S. Roseman, 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 the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 17, 2003                            By:  /s/ Barry S. Roseman
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


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
















                                       E-1
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William A. BURST, Appellant.

No. WD 51832.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 10, 1996.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and SPINDEN and ELLIS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William A. Burst appeals his convictions-for one count of murder in the first degree and one count of murder in the second degree. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Raymond A. Link, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report of FEI Company on Form 10-K for the annual period 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 annual report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of FEI Company.



|    |  |                                                     
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ RAYMOND A. LINK                                 
|    |  | Raymond A. Link                                     
|    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

February 20, 2009
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSICA WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12996

MERCHANTS AND MEDICAL Honorable Sean F. Cox

CREDIT CORP., JANE DOE, and

MR. SHAW, Individually and Jointly, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST JANE DOE AND “MR. SHAW”

On July 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant Merchants and Medical

Credit Corp. Plaintiff’s complaint also named two other defendants, whose identities were

apparently unknown to Plaintiff at the time: 1) Jane Doe; and 2) “Mr. Shaw.” (Docket Entry No.

1).

Discovery closed on April 14, 2010 and this Court dismissed all claims against

Defendant Merchants and Medical Credit Corp. in an Opinion & Order issued on September 2,

2010 (Doc. No. 54). Thus, “Jane Doe” and “Mr. Shaw” are the only remaining defendants in

this action. 

Although this case was on the Court’s September / October trailing trial docket, as of

September 8, 2010, Plaintiff had not amended her Complaint to name specific individual

defendants nor had she served either of those individuals. Thus, on September 8, 2010, this

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, no later than fourteen days from the entry of
2

the order, why her claims against Jane Doe and “Mr. Shaw” should not be dismissed.

Plaintiff has failed to file any response this Court’s September 8, 2010 Show Cause Order

and the time for doing so has expired.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Jane Doe and

“Mr. Shaw” are hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: October 7, 2010

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

October 7, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
**Exhibit 14.2**

 

**CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS**

**PURSUANT TO SOX 406**

 

Inmy role as a senior financial officer of Samsonite Corporation and/or itsdirect and indirect subsidiaries (“Company”), I recognize that senior financialofficers hold an important and elevated role in corporate governance. Accordingly,this Code of Ethical Conduct for Senior Financial Officers Pursuant to SOX 406(“Code”) provides principles to which senior financial officers are expected toadhere and advocate.

 

Icertify that I adhere to and advocate the following principles andresponsibilities governing my professional and ethical conduct in my positionwith the Company. To the best of my knowledge and ability:

 

1.                                       Iact with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts ofinterest in personal and professional relationships.

 

2.                                       Iprovide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant, timely andunderstandable.

 

3.                                       Icomply with rules and regulations of federal, state, provincial and localgovernments, and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.

 

4.                                       Iact in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence,without misrepresenting material facts or allowing my independent judgment tobe subordinated.

 

5.                                       Irespect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of my workexcept where authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose. Confidentialinformation acquired in the course of my work is not used for personaladvantage.

 

6.                                       Imaintain skills important and relevant to my position within the Company.

 

7.                                       Iproactively promote ethical behavior as a responsible partner among peers in mywork environment and community.

 

8.                                       Iachieve responsible use of and control over all assets and resources employedor entrusted to me.

 

9.                                       Iwill report known or suspected violations of this Code to the Audit Committee.

 

10.                                 Iwill be accountable for adhering to this Code.

 

 
| Signature: |   |   |
|------------|--------|--------|
|       |   |   |
| Printed    |   |   |
| Name:      |   |   |
|       |   |   |
| Title:     |   |   |
|       |   |   |
| Date:      |   |   |
|            |        |        |  |  |  |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Denessa Westbrook, et al, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jason Brasgalla, et al,

 

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 09-11457

HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSIVE PLEADING

On August 28, 2010 Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate [40]. To date, Defendants have

not filed a responsive pleading. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendants to file a response in

accordance with LR 7.1, ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 24, 2010.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: November 19, 2010

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

November 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11457-NGE-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 11/19/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 407
DTLA 2013.12.31 10K EX 4.1






Exhibit 4.1
 
[CERTIFICATE]
 
	
			
	A Maryland Corporation

	 

	[BROOKFIELD DTLA FUND OFFICE TRUST INVESTOR INC. CORPORATE LOGO]

	 
	 
	 

	NUMBER
	 
	SHARES

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc.

	7.625% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, Par Value $0.01 Per Share

	 
	 
	 




 
	
					
	This Certifies that
	 
	 
	 
	is the owner of

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	fully paid and




non-assessable Shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 


In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation.




[BROOKFIELD DTLA FUND OFFICE TRUST INVESTOR INC. CORPORATE SEAL]
 
	
							
	Dated
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Mitchell E. Rudin
	 
	 
	 
	By:
	/s/ Michelle L. Campbell

	Name:
	Mitchell E. Rudin
	 
	 
	 
	Name:
	Michelle L. Campbell

	Title:
	President
	 
	 
	 
	Title:
	Secretary















The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations.  Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the list.


	
										
	TEN COM
	– as tenants in common
	 
	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT –
	 
	Custodian
	 
	(Minor)

	TEN ENT
	– as tenants by the entireties
	 
	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
	 
	(State)

	JT TEN
	– as joint tenants with right of  survivorship
	 
	UNIF TRF MIN ACT –
	 
	Custodian
	 
	(Minor)

	 
	   and not as tenants in common
	 
	under
	 
	(State)
	Uniform Transfer to Minors Act




   
	
						
	For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
	 
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
         IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

	 
	 
	 

	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE
 
 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 

	 
	Shares

	represented by the within Certificate, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints
	 

	 
	 
	Attorney to transfer the said

	shares on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
	 






	
							
	Dated,
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	In presence of
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BENNIE BRYANT, SR., #359946,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 2:09-CV-12824

HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

DAVID BERGH,

Respondent.

/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING,

NEW TRIAL, AND/OR RETURN TO FREEDOM

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on June 3, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s one-page motion for evidentiary

hearing, new trial, and/or return to freedom concerning his pending petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. Petitioner provides no argument or facts in support of his motion.

Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts states, in pertinent part:

If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must review the answer, any

transcripts and records of state-court proceedings, and any materials

submitted under Rule 7 to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is

warranted. 
2

While Respondent has filed an answer to the petition and state court documents, those

materials have not yet been thoroughly reviewed by this Court. Petitioner’s request for an

evidentiary hearing is therefore premature. Petitioner’s requests for a new trial and/or

release from custody are similarly premature given that the Court has yet to review his

habeas claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s

motion. If, after reviewing Respondent’s answer and the state court record, the Court

finds that an evidentiary hearing is required or that habeas relief should be granted, the

Court will enter an appropriate order. Petitioner need not file additional motions

concerning such matters.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Bennie Bryant, Sr., #359946

West Shoreline Correctional Facility

2500 S. Sheridan Drive

Muskegon Heights, MI 49444

Andrea M. Christensen, Esq.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Premier Power Renewable
Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Dean R. Marks, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the date and for the periods indicated.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | Date: August 14, 2012                                
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                      
| | /s/ Dean R. Marks                                    
| | Dean R. Marks                                        
| | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS’

LOCAL 324 PENSION FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 09-10339

Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

vs.

D.A.V. CONTRACTING, INC. and

DAVID VENTURA,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

SET ASIDE ANSWER OF D.A.V. CONTRACTING, INC.

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on April 1, 2009 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

On March 4, 2009, Defendant David Ventura, a non-attorney, filed an answer to

the complaint on behalf of himself and the corporate Defendant, D.A.V. Contracting, Inc. 

By motion filed on March 10, 2009, Plaintiffs request that this answer be stricken as to

D.A.V. Contracting, citing the well-established rule that “a corporation may appear in the

federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit

II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S. Ct. 716, 721 (1993); see also

United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 (6th Cir. 1969). While

Defendant Ventura suggests in his response to Plaintiffs’ motion that this rule may be

2:09-cv-10339-GER-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 04/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 40
1

For what it is worth, the Supreme Court has characterized the rare departures from this

rule as “aberrant cases” which “neither follow federal precedent, nor have themselves been

followed.” Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202 & n.5, 113 S. Ct. at 721 & n.5. In any event, this Court is

not at liberty to depart from the Sixth Circuit precedent on this issue.

2

relaxed in “extraordinary circumstances,”1 he has not even attempted to identify any such

circumstances here. Accordingly,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ March 10, 2009

motion to set aside answer of D.A.V. Contracting, Inc. (docket #11) is GRANTED. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the March 4, 2009 answer filed by Defendant David Ventura

on his own behalf and on behalf of Defendant D.A.V. Contracting, Inc. is SET ASIDE as

to D.A.V. Contracting, Inc. only. Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within

fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Defendant D.A.V. Contracting, Inc. shall

retain counsel and file and serve an answer or other permissible response to Plaintiffs’

complaint. Absent such action by this Defendant within this 14-day period, Plaintiffs

shall be entitled to pursue any and all appropriate relief against Defendant D.A.V.

Contracting, Inc., including a clerk’s entry of default and a default judgment.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: April 1, 2009

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

on April 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10339-GER-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 04/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 41
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. R.D. JONES, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48604, WD 50051.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 31, 1995.

Rosemary E. Percival, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from his conviction of one count of second degree robbery, § 569.030 RSMo 1994, and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Jerome Tellis,

Petitioner, Case No. 09-11530

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Nick Ludwick,

Respondent.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including Petitioner’s Objections if any, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is further ordered that Petitioner’s

application for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: September 15, 2010

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

September 15, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS LEE PICKETT,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-20195

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S OCTOBER 29, 2009 MOTION TO ALLOW POLYGRAPH RESULTS

This matter came before the court on defendant Thomas Lee Pickett’s October 29, 2009

Motion to Allow Results of Polygraph Examinations to be Admitted into Evidence at Evidentiary

Hearing on Motion to Suppress. The government filed a response November 3, 2009. Pursuant to

Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), no oral argument was heard.

Defendant Thomas Lee Pickett seeks to have admitted the results of private polygraph

examinations of him and his wife on the issue of whether he revoked his consent to have the

Oakland County Sheriff's Department examine his digital camera.

"[T]he general rule [is] that polygraph evidence is inadmissible." United States v. Logan, 187

F.3d 639 (6th Cir. 1999). In United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 1999), the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's refusal to admit polygraph

results and held that "admitting [them] would have been subject to reversal by this court." Id. at 309.

In addition to the inherently unreliable nature of polygraphs in general, "unilaterally obtained

polygraph evidence," like that at issue in this case, "is almost never admissible under Evidence Rule

5:09-cr-20195-JCO-DAS Doc # 29 Filed 12/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 293
2

403." United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, 1216 (6th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the court will deny

defendant Pickett's motion.

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Pickett's October 29, 2009 Motion to Allow Results

of Polygraph Examinations is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: December 8, 2009

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

on this date, December 8, 2009, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cr-20195-JCO-DAS Doc # 29 Filed 12/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 294