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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

128355 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MARK P. JAMES, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices and

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee SC: 128355 v COA: 257993 WCAC: 04-000002 AUTO LAB DIAGNOST ICS & TUNE UP CENTERS and FARM ERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants-Appellants, and

SECOND INJURY FUND, PERMANENT &

TOTAL DISABILITY PROVISIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On January 11, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2005 or der of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered and, pursuan t to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the decision of the Work er's Compensation Appellate Commission because, under the undi sputed facts, plaintiff's a ttendance at the seminar was not an incident of his employment. As a resu lt, plaintiff is not entitle d to benefits because his injury on the trip to the seminar did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Camburn v Northwest School District , 459 Mich 471 (1999).

C AVANAGH , J., would deny leave to appeal.

W EAVER , J., dissents and states as follows:

I would remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted and for the application of Camburn v Northwest School Dist (After Remand), 459 Mich 471 (1999)._______________________________________ __ 2

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:

I would deny leave to appeal. The reco rd contains ample facts to support the decision of the magistrate, the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission, and the Court of Appeals that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

t0221 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.

February 24, 2006

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Criminal No. 09-CR-20177

vs. HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

DEANDRE JAMES,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER TRANSFERRING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Defendant has filed two motions for the appointment of counsel that are both dated July 17,

2019: (1) “motion of the appointment of counsel based on newly discovered evidence” [docket entry 31],

and (2) “motion of the appointment of counsel based on newly discovered evidence ‘Rehaif v. U.S., No. #17-

19560’” [docket entry 32]. In these motions, defendant seeks relief in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139

S. Ct. 2191 (2019). The instant motions appear to be second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, the first

such motion having been filed on June 17, 2016 [docket entry 21]. A second or successive § 2255 motion

“must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals . . . .” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. When, as in this case, a second or successive § 2255 motion is filed without the required

certification, the district court is required to transfer the motion to the court of appeals. See In re Hanserd,

123 F.3d 922, 934 (6th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s (1) “motion of the appointment of counsel based on newly

discovered evidence,” and (2) “motion of the appointment of counsel based on newly discovered evidence

‘Rehaif v. U.S., No. #17-19560’” are hereby transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit.

Dated: April 28, 2020

Detroit, Michigan

s/Bernard A. Friedman

Bernard A. Friedman

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cr-20177-BAF-RSW ECF No. 37 filed 04/28/20 PageID.214 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE 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 April 28, 2020.

Deandre James #43555039 

Pollock U.S. Penitentiary 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

P.O. Box 2099 

Pollock, LA 71467

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams

Case Manager

2

Case 2:09-cr-20177-BAF-RSW ECF No. 37 filed 04/28/20 PageID.215 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R. Howell IV, 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, 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 Company.

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



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: April 5, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Charles R. Howell IV         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Wilbur COX, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69197.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 2, 1996.

S. Paige Canfield, Special Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for then-information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JANE RUSSELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-46; CA-03-710-7) Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jane Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jane Russell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Russell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Russell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Charles Vincent USHERY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George E. SNYDER, Warden; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6237.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Before BATCHELDER and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and RUSSELL, District Judge.*

The Honorable Thomas B. Russell, United States District Judge for the Western District *575of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

*575
      *ORDER*

Charles Vincent Ushery, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se a district court judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Ushery was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine; he was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment. His conviction was upheld on direct appeal. *United States v. Ushery,*968 F.2d 575 (6th Cir.1992). A motion to vacate sentence was denied, and affirmed by this court in Case No. 96-5982. A motion for an order authorizing a second motion to vacate was denied by this court in Case No. 01-5609.

Ushery then filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, raising claims that the jury should have determined the amount of drugs involved, his role as an organizer, and the use of a firearm; that the district court had improperly delegated the fact-finding sentencing hearing to a magistrate judge; that he received an improper six-level increase for relevant conduct; that the government had not given notice of its intent to use two prior convictions in calculating the sentence; and that his counsel was ineffective. The district court dismissed the petition sua sponte, concluding that the claims raised could not be addressed in a § 2241 petition. On appeal, Ushery has narrowed his claims to two: the magistrate judge was not authorized to conduct the sentencing evidentiary hearing; and the jury was required to determine drug quantity.

An action under § 2241 is reserved for challenges to the execution of a sentence, not the validity of a sentence. *United States v. Jalili,*925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir.1991). In order to utilize § 2241 as a way of circumventing the restrictions on untimely and successive motions to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner must make a claim of actual innocence. *Charles v. Chandler,*180 F.3d 753, 757 (6th Cir.1999). The claims presented in this case do not meet this standard.

Because the district court properly concluded that the claims presented here were not amenable to review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the dismissal of the petition is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17819]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcced3dbd9cecfd28efcd2d5d8dd92d2d5d492dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9dbc6ceccdbdac79be9c7c0cdc887c7c0c187cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Max Weissengruber, President, and D. Brian
Robertson, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President of Sales, of
Freshwater Technologies, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Freshwater
      Technologies, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2009 (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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc.                                                                     



Dated: November 13, 2009



/s/ Max Weissengruber Max
Weissengruber President and Director (Principal Executive Officer)



/s/ D. Brian Robertson D. Brian
Robertson Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice-President of Sales
and Director (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Freshwater
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Freshwater Technologies, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 878 

Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National Family Literacy 

Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals and ideals of National 

Family Literacy Day. 

Whereas National Family Literacy Day is held on November 

1; 

Whereas children spend 5 times as much time outside the 

classroom as they do in school, and a parent’s education 

and income are 2 of the biggest factors in determining 

a child’s success in school; 

Whereas children who participate in family literacy programs 

demonstrate significant gains in oral language skills and 

score higher on standardized tests; 

Whereas National Family Literacy Day encourages parents 

to become involved in their children’s education and 

schoolwork; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 878 IH 

Whereas approximately 8,000 literacy programs and schools 

will hold readings, workshops, book drives, and family activities at libraries and community centers across the 

country in honor of National Family Literacy Day; and 

Whereas National Family Literacy Day highlights 

multigenerational learning, the importance of literacy for 

children and adults, and parental involvement in the education of their children: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Family Literacy Day; and 

4 (2) recognizes the benefits of parental involve5 ment in a child’s education. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2:09-mc-50231-GCS Doc # 29 Filed 08/19/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 151
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Vincent Pronesti et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 08-15086

Acument Global Technologies, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

“APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO BE RELIEVED 

OF OBLIGATION TO SPECIFY LOCAL COUNSEL.”

On March 26, 2009, Plaintiffs filed the instant “Application of Plaintiffs’ Counsel to be

Relieved of Obligation to Specify Local Counsel.” (Docket Entry No. 12). Having considered

the request, the Court concludes that it would be beneficial for Plaintiffs to have local counsel in

this putative class action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: April 6, 2009

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

on April 6, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-15086-SFC-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 04/06/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20137-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

ERIC K. KJELLAN,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT ONE, AND TAKING THE RULE 11

PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on May 13, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge Charles

E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report on May 14,

2009, recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of today’s date, no

party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The failure to

file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object

to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 16] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20137-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/02/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 50
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to count one is ACCEPTED,

and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 15] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: June 2, 2009

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 June 2, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20137-TLL-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 06/02/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 51
Exhibit 32.01    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 POWRtec International Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Grant Jasmin, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Grant Jasmin By: Grant Jasmin Chief Executive Officer  Dated: August 14, 2012  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic Financial,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: November 14, 2008/s/ Andrew S. Lerner

Name: Andrew S. LernerTitle:   Chief Executive Officer