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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

RUTH MOSHOLDER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-11829

PATRICIA BARNHARDT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE

Before the court is Defendants Patricia Barnhardt and Dewayne Burton’s motion

in limine, which has been fully briefed. The court conducted a telephonic hearing on the

motion on January 29, 2013. For the reasons stated more fully on the record,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine [Dkt. # 46] is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

(A) The challenged rap lyrics may be used as exemplars, not as substantive

exhibits, subject to a possible restriction as to quantity and a possible limiting instruction

to the jury in the absence of a clear stipulation by Plaintiff that the lyrics are not

purported to be precisely what Plaintiff claims to have heard earlier;

(B) Plaintiff’s medical records are, or will be, properly authenticated as business

records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), but physician statements made within

the records, if produced for proving the truth of the matter asserted, are excluded as

hearsay unless an appropriate hearsay exception (or other foundation) is presented; 

2:09-cv-11829-RHC-LJM Doc # 58 Filed 01/29/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 967
2

(C) Plaintiff’s February 13, 2007 performance evaluation--but no earlier

evaluation--is admissible; and

(D) Plaintiff’s testimony that her reassignment was more dangerous than the

school officer position is relevant and properly admissible if presented as her personal

observation(s), and is not subject to exclusion under a prejudice-vs-probative-value

analysis of Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 29, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, January 29, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-11829.MOSHOLDER.MIL2013.RHC.wpd

2:09-cv-11829-RHC-LJM Doc # 58 Filed 01/29/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 968
#### Kimberly S. STRYKER, Appellant, v. Kathleen M. KUNKLER, Respondent.

No. WD 52753.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 14, 1997.

Denise M. Anderson, Kansas City, for appellant.

Joel B. Laner, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from judgment in favor of Respondent and against Appellant.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Board of Directors
CONDOR TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (333-64505), (333-73055) and (333-57413) of our report
dated March 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Condor Technology Solutions, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                                               BDO Seidman, LLP


Washington, D.C.
March 28, 2002
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Randall WHITEAKER, Appellant.

No. WD 48884.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 5, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Randall B. Whiteaker appeals his criminal conviction, following a jury trial, of production of a controlled substance, § 195.211 R.S.Mo 1994. No error of law appears.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no *896precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.65


 


  Maximum
Mortgage Contract


 


Contract No.: 2013JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI13140824


 


Mortgagor: Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd


 


Mortgagee : CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : September 2, 2013


 


Mortgage
Definition:   To ensure multiple loans Party B (Pledgee) has lent to Hebei Xuhua Trading Co., Ltd., Party A (Pledgor)
is willing to provide the Maximum Pledge Guarantee hereunder for Party B.


  


Maximum Amount: RMB120, 000,000


 


Mortgage Term : September 2, 2013 to February 16, 2015


 


Collateral: The assets account receivable
Party A mortgages to Party B as Collateral are listed in Maximum Mortgage Contract (No.2013JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI13140824-01). The
appraised value of the Collateral is RMB 1,426,744,639.05
#### ENGINEERED MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. (also known as Engineered Maintenance Services), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-5100.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 16, 2003.

ORDER

AppeUant having paid the required filing fee, it is ORDERED that the order of *63dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the notice of appeal is REINSTATED.

Appellant’s brief is due within 60 days from the date of filing of this order.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MAURICE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-12451-DT

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.

________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (docket no. 12)

and Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

(docket no. 11). Defendant has filed a Response to both motions. (Docket no. 14). All pretrial

matters have been referred to the undersigned for decision. (Docket no. 6). The Court dispenses

with oral argument pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e).

Judge Edmunds earlier denied Plaintiff’s Application for the Appointment of Counsel. 

(Docket nos. 3, 4). Plaintiff has failed to show a change in circumstances sufficient to grant the

motion at this time. After considering the proper factors, Plaintiff’s motion will again be denied.

Plaintiff also moves for an extension of time to file a Response to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss. (Docket no. 11). However, Plaintiff filed a Response on August 28, 2009. (Docket no.

16). Moreover, Plaintiff’s reason for requesting an extension of time is based on the possibility of

the Court appointing counsel and counsel filing a brief. This Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion

for counsel likely removes the possibility that counsel will make an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff

2:09-cv-12451-NGE-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 198
and file a brief. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time because

a Response has already been filed. If Plaintiff obtains representation and counsel wishes to file a

Response on his behalf, counsel may file for leave to do so. Defendant’s motion will not be held

in abeyance, however.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (docket no.

11) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (docket no. 12)

is DENIED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of this

Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28

U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: September 08, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Maurice Jenkins and

Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: September 08, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Courtroom Deputy

-2-

2:09-cv-12451-NGE-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 199
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH Document 61 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 10 of 10
#### Raymond Louis BUNTE, Respondent, v. Sherry Ann BUNTE, Appellant.

No. 65577.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Andrew B. Leonard, Tracy M. Synan, McCarthy, Leonard, Kaemmerer, Owen, Laderman & Lamkin, L.C., Chesterfield, for appellant.

David D. Weltner, Bridgeton, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM*

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals from the trial court’s award of primary custody of her two minor children to husband in this dissolution proceeding. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3834

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To redesignate the Dunning Post Office in Chicago, Illinois,

as the ‘‘Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3834 RDS

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The Dunning Post Office, located at 6441 West Ir3 ving Park Road, Chicago, Illinois, shall be redesignated

4 and known as the ‘‘Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

8 States Post Office referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CitiMortgage, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12881

United States of America, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff filed this action on July 22, 2009. On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed the

instant motion seeking entry of a default judgment against Defendants Andrea Crayton and

Mercy Dee. (Docket Entry No. 12).

“An entry of default and an entry of default judgment are two separate events or steps. 

The first step is the entry of default when it is shown, by affidavit or otherwise, that a defending

party on a claim has failed to plead or otherwise defend. The second step is the entry of default

judgment.” 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 233. The custom and practice in this Court is that a

clerk’s entry of a default is a prerequisite to obtaining a default judgment from the district court. 

See e.g., Dahill Management, LLC v. Moore, 2009 WL 1664559 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (Wherein

Chief Judge Gerald Rosen explained that “[t]his Court requires that the Plaintiff first obtain a

clerks’s entry of default” before seeking a default judgment from the district court.).

The docket reflects that Plaintiff has not yet sought or obtained a clerk’s entry of default

as to either Defendant Crayton or Defendant Dee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

2:09-cv-12881-SFC-MKM Doc # 13 Filed 12/15/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 98
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: December 15, 2009

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

December 15, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12881-SFC-MKM Doc # 13 Filed 12/15/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 99
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
                               Jameson Inns, Inc.
          Calculation of Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges
                         and Preferred Stock Dividends
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              December 31,                      Pro Forma
                         ------------------------------------------------------ ----------
                            1994       1995       1996       1997       1998       1994
                         ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
<S>                      <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Consolidated income
 before extraordinary
 items.................. $1,311,157 $1,791,268 $4,040,809 $6,595,132 $5,807,051 $1,424,000
Interest................    305,130  1,503,373  1,292,427    698,203  1,542,133    187,000
Amortization............     34,312     87,151     93,085     79,515    114,107        --
                         ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
 Earnings............... $1,650,599 $3,381,792 $5,426,321 $7,372,850 $7,463,291 $1,611,000
                         ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
 
Interest................ $  305,130 $1,503,373 $1,292,427 $  698,203 $1,542,133 $  187,000
Amortization............     34,312     87,151     93,085     79,515    114,107        --
Preferred stock
 dividends..............        --     489,949        --         --   2,188,050        --
Interest capitalized
 during the period......    182,569    381,508    526,130    637,290  1,125,935    183,000
                         ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
 Fixed Charges.......... $  522,011 $2,461,981 $1,911,642 $1,415,008 $4,970,225 $  370,000
                         ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges and
 preferred stock
 dividends..............       3.16       1.37       2.84       5.21       1.50       4.35
                         ========== ========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6501
RICHARD LEE MCKENZIE, Petitioner - Appellant, versusSOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-2578-6-6AK) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Lee McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McKenzie v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr. , No. CA-96-2578-6- 6AK (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kim
Zilke, President 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, to my
knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: May 14, 2007

                                         By: /s/ Kim Zilke
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Kim Zilke
                                            President
**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 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, 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. |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                               |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                               |   | /s/                      John Stelzer |
|   | John                      Stelzer                                                                                  |
|   | Treasurer(Principal                      Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated: May 15,                      2008 |

----
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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter
Stunder, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the
Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/
Walter Stunder


Walter
Stunder




Chief
Executive Officer






December
15, 2008






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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis
Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/
Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis
Jimenez Rivero


Chief
Financial Officer






December
15, 2008
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4087

To designate certain Federal lands in the Talladega National Forest in

the State of Alabama as the Dugger Mountain Wilderness.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

Mr. BROWDER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To designate certain Federal lands in the Talladega National

Forest in the State of Alabama as the Dugger Mountain

Wilderness.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dugger Mountain Wil5 derness Act of 1996’’.
2

•HR 4087 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DUGGER MOUNTAIN WILDER2 NESS, ALABAMA.

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—In furtherance of the purposes of

4 the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), certain Fed5 eral lands in the Talladega National Forest in the State

6 of Alabama, which comprise approximately 14,000 acres,

7 as generally depicted on a map entitled ‘‘Dugger Mountain

8 Wilderness—Proposed’’ and dated 1996, are hereby

9 designated as wilderness and, therefore, as components of

10 the National Wilderness Preservation System, and shall

11 be known as the Dugger Mountain Wilderness.

12 (b) MAP AND DESCRIPTION.—As soon as practicable

13 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of

14 Agriculture shall submit to Congress a map and a bound15 ary description of the area designated as wilderness by

16 this section. The map and description shall have the same

17 force and effect as if included in this Act, except that the

18 Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in

19 the map and description. The map and boundary descrip20 tion shall also be on file and available for public inspection

21 in appropriate offices of the Department of Agriculture.

22 (c) MANAGEMENT.—Subject to valid existing rights,

23 lands designated as wilderness by this section shall be

24 managed by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance

25 with the Wilderness Act, except that, with respect to the

26 wilderness area designated by this section, any reference
3

•HR 4087 IH

1 in the Wilderness Act to the effective date of the Wilder2 ness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the date

3 of enactment of this Act.

Æ