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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ADIL SHAFI, an individual, 

 Counter- Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRAINTECH INC., and 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual, 

 Counter-Defendant. 

_____________________________________/ 

Case No. 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING ORDER 

DATED JUNE 15, 2010

 On June 15, 2010, the Court held a Status Conference. Attending were James 

Murphy representing Shafi; Anne Widlak and Susan Koval representing Braintech and 

Geoffrey Greeves representing Weidinger. As a result, the Court issued an order 

addressing scheduling and discovery. For a variety of reasons, the parties were unable 

to complete deposition scheduling within 45 days as ordered by the Court. Shafi 

subsequently filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket No. 38). The parties have 

conferred in good faith and have resolved the scheduling and discovery issues as 

follows: 

1. Adil Shafi’s deposition will proceed on July 29, 2010 and will continue to 

July 30, 2010, if necessary, for a total period of 1.5 days (10 hours). 

2. Frederick Weidinger’s deposition will take place on September 13, 2010 and 

will continue to September 14, 2010, if necessary, for a total period of 1.5 days (10 hours). 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 40 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

3. The parties request the Court adjourn the status conference set for 

July 30, 2010 and postpone the status conference set for August 9, 2010 to 

September 15, 2010 or thereafter. 

4. The parties will confer in good faith as to any other depositions. 

5. The other provisions of the June 15, 2010 order continue to apply. 

6. Shafi’s Motion to Compel Discovery is withdrawn. 

I hereby consent to the entry of this Order: 

_/s/James P. Murphy____ 

JAMES P. MURPHY (P36728) 

Attorneys for Adil Shafi 

 /s/Susan D. Koval________________ 

SUSAN D. KOVAL (P59297) 

Attorneys for Braintech 

_/s/Geoffrey J. Greeves______________ 

GEOFFREY J. GREEVES 

Attorneys for Frederick Weidinger 

 /s/Anne Bagno Widlak________________

ANNE BAGNO WIDLAK (P35763) 

Attorneys for Braintech 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts

 United States District Judge 

Dated: 7/29/10 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 40 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3875

To redesignate the dam located at mile 153.6 on the Rogue River in Jackson

County, Oregon, and commonly known as the Lost Creek Dam Lake

Project, as the ‘‘William L. Jess Dam and Intake Structure’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 23, 1996

Mr. COOLEY of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To redesignate the dam located at mile 153.6 on the Rogue

River in Jackson County, Oregon, and commonly known

as the Lost Creek Dam Lake Project, as the ‘‘William

L. Jess Dam and Intake Structure’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

4 The dam located at mile 153.6 on the Rogue River

5 in Jackson County, Oregon, and commonly known as the

6 Lost Creek Dam Lake Project, shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘William L. Jess Dam and Intake Struc8 ture’’.
2

•HR 3875 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the dam

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the ‘‘William L. Jess Dam and Intake Structure’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



Correctional Services Corporation



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 Correctional Services Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James F. Slattery, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ James F. Slattery                
|James F. Slattery                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2005



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



A certification furnished pursuant to this item will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78r], or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be
deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LINDA SEXTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 99-2530

KENNETH S. APFEL,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.

James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-98-197-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2000

Decided: May 4, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vernon M. Williams, Erick A. Bowman, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. John M. Sacchetti, Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert S. Drum, Assistant

Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Linda Sexton appeals from the denial of Social Security disability

benefits. We affirm.

Sexton suffers from anxiety, depression, and severe back and

shoulder pain. Based on these conditions, she twice petitioned for disability insurance benefits. Her first petition was denied by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") in 1994. An ALJ denied her second petition

in 1997. The district court affirmed the denial of benefits, and this

appeal followed.

Sexton contends that the ALJ made two errors. First, she asserts the

ALJ was incorrect when he determined that her anxiety and depression were not severe. The record, however, contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion, and we therefore affirm it.

See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

Sexton's second claim is that the ALJ erred when examining the

vocational expert. Specifically, Sexton alleges that the ALJ's hypothetical questions did not take the findings of Dr. Russell McKnight

into account, instead relying on findings that predated McKnight's

examination. This is incorrect; the ALJ asked the vocational expert

questions that encompassed McKnight's conclusions. While the ALJ

later determined McKnight's findings deserved little weight, the

examination of the vocational expert was thorough.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's order upholding the

denial of disability benefits. 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

 2
#### Donnell Earl COY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 10-93-062-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

July 27, 1994.

Kerri K. Anderson-Donica, Corsicana, for appellant.

Patrick C. Batchelor, Crim. Dist. Atty., Jamie Bagnall, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Corsi-cana, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

OPINION

THOMAS, Chief Justice.

A jury convicted Donnell Coy of robbery and assessed punishment of sixty years’ im*961prisonment. *See*TexPenal Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 1989). In one point of error, he claims the evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that he placed his victim in fear of imminent bodily injury. We will affirm.

The offense occurred in a Corsicana convenience store and was recorded on the store’s surveillance camera. The jury viewed the videotape of the incident after it was introduced into evidence by the State. However, the videotape is not included in the record before this court. Neither is Coy’s designation of the record on appeal before us. “[A] defendant who wishes to raise a sufficiency issue on appeal has the burden of ensuring that the entire record of the trial before the fact finder is before the appellate court....” *O’Neal v. State,*826 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Without the videotape, we are unable to determine the merits of Coy’s insufficient-evidence argument. *See id.; see also Hall v. State,*829 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, no pet.). Therefore, we overrule his sole point of error and affirm the judgment of the court.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 25, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00488

- CR

Troy Allen Dennis , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUS TICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE MORGAN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 08-15069

 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

JEFFREY WOODS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

Respondent.

_____________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Opinion and Order entered on this date,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DENIED. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Dated: December 14, 2010 United States District Judge

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

Morgan, Reg. No. 276743, Mound Correctional Facility 17601 Mound Rd., Detroit, MI

48212 and counsel of record on December 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/William F. Lewis 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE MORGAN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 08-15069

 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

JEFFREY WOODS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

Respondent.

_____________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Opinion and Order entered on this date,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DENIED. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Dated: December 14, 2010 United States District Judge

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

Morgan, Reg. No. 276743, Mound Correctional Facility 17601 Mound Rd., Detroit, MI

48212 and counsel of record on December 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/William F. Lewis 

Case Manager
#### In the Interest of D.L.F., Plaintiff. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. C.F. (Natural Mother), Appellant.

No. WD 52269.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Sept. 16, 1996.

Decided Jan. 14, 1997.

Nancy Alemifar, Kansas City, for appellant.

Dale N. Godfrey, Guardian ad litem, Donald L. Cain, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and LAURA DENVER STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

C.F. appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court, Juvenile Division, terminating her parental rights to her minor child, D.L.F., who •was four-and-a half years old at the time of trial.

The judgment is affirmed. The decision is without precedential value. A memorandum has been furnished to the parties, explaining the basis of the decision. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL E. GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No.09-11612

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having issued

an Opinion and Order on this date granting Defendant’s motion and denying Plaintiff’s

motion,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the Complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATE: September 7, 2010 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Donald W. Busta, Esq.

AUSA Derri T. Thomas

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  By:
    
    /s/ William G. Manias
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Robert G. PhillipsWilliam G. Manias
    
    
    
    
    
    Robert G. PhillipsSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer of Crestwood
    
    
    
    
    
    President and Chief Executive Office of CrestwoodGas Services GP LLC, General Partner of Crestwood
    
    
    
    
    
    Gas Services GP LLC, General Partner of CrestwoodMidstream Partners LP
    
    
    
    
    
    Midstream Partners LP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE H. YUILLE,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11203

Plaintiff,

DISTRICT JUDGE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

v.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICING, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO ESTABLISH ESCROW ACCOUNT

This matter is before the magistrate judge on Defendants’ Motion to Establish

Escrow Account. The Motion was filed October 30, 2009. Plaintiff filed his Response on

November 18, 2009. Both parties have filed supplemental briefing. The Motion was

brought on for hearing on May 11, 2010, and taken under advisement. 

Having considered Defendants’ Motion, together with Plaintiff’s Response, and the

arguments and supplemental briefings, I find that the Motion should be denied. Defendants

have not provided persuasive authority for the proposition that Plaintiff may be compelled

to make payments on a contested debt in advance of an adverse judgment and in the

absence of a stipulation. In Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, 1990 WL 10520985 (E.D.

Mich.), for example, the escrow was established subsequent to the entry of judgment. In

Paul v. U.S. Mutual Financial, 150 Mich.App. 773 (1986), a summary judgment case, the

debtor requested the escrow of its own payments. The other authority submitted by

Defendant dealt with voluntary escrow payments, or with circumstances dissimilar to those

presented in the case at bar. Defendants also submitted copies of court orders directing
escrow payments, but those orders contain no reasoned analysis which might be applied

to the facts of the instant case.

A Report and Recommendation has been filed with regard to the parties cross

Motions for Summary Judgment. Should Defendants secure a judgment against Plaintiff,

and Plaintiff elects to appeal from that judgment, Defendants may seek the imposition of

an appropriate appeal bond to protect them from financial loss.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Establish Escrow

Account is DENIED.

s/Donald A. Scheer

DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: September 22, 2010

______________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on September 22, 2010 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants on September 22, 2010: Bruce Yuille.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20006-01

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

RICHARD WILDFONG, JR.,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On September 15, 2009, this case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on

September 21, 2009. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s

consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by

Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each

of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a

presentence investigation report.

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 114, PageID.331 Filed 09/22/09 Page 1 of 2
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596

(6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties are

advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections

a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security,

474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: September 22, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:09-cr-20006-TLL-CEB ECF No. 114, PageID.332 Filed 09/22/09 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 **

U.S.C. § 636(c).

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO RIVERA, AKA Tomas

Salamanca Ramirez, AKA Dennis

Gonzales,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DON BELL,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-35349

D.C. No. 9:05-CV-00165-JCL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Jeremiah C. Lynch, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 11, 2013*** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Rivera, aka Tomas Salamanca Ramirez, aka Dennis Gonzales, appeals

FILED

FEB 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-35349

pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging claims arising from his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol

and other charges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rivera’s excessive

force claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity because Rivera failed to raise

a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant used unreasonable force

in trying to gain control over, search, and arrest Rivera after Rivera refused to obey

instructions, behaved erratically, and tried to resist the officer. See Tatum v. City &

County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2006) (use of force

during an arrest was objectively reasonable, not excessive, where suspect, who

later died of cocaine toxicity, was agitated, refused to obey commands, struggled

out of the officer’s grasp, and otherwise resisted arrest); see also Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009) (defendants were entitled to qualified

immunity where there is no violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right

at issue was not “clearly established”).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHER DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J.DUGGAN

CIVIL NO.09-11380

RIVIERA DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

-VRDI OF MICHIGAN, LLC,,

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At a session of said Court held in the

United States Courthouse,in the City of

Detroit, State of Michigan, on September 8, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J.DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court having received a Stipulation for Dismissal but no order having been 

presented; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled case be, and hereby is 

DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation of the parties filed September 6, 

2011.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: September 8, 2011

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

on September 8, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

 

2:09-cv-11380-PJD-RSW Doc # 164 Filed 09/08/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3816