alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 1 of 7    Pg ID 7206

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 2 of 7    Pg ID 7207

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 3 of 7    Pg ID 7208

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 4 of 7    Pg ID 7209

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 5 of 7    Pg ID 7210

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 6 of 7    Pg ID 7211

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM   Doc # 282-1    Filed 05/04/12   Pg 7 of 7    Pg ID 7212
**Exhibit
        32**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 
 In
        connection with the periodic report of uKarma Corporation (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Glaser, Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
        and Accounting 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 dates
        and for the periods indicated.
  Date: November 19,
                  2008
                /s/ BillGlaser
                  Bill
                    Glaser
                  Chief
                    Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
                    Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 
333-05873, 33-76120, 333-05959, 33-76122, 333-05957, 333-18935, 333-18883, 
333-18885, 333-30841, 333-30211, 333-31901, 333-31895 and 333-43757 on Form 
S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-94532 on Form S-3 of Interim Services 
Inc. of our report dated February 5, 1998, appearing in this Annual Report on 
Form 10-K of Interim Services Inc. for the year ended December 26,1997.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 9, 1998
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive OfficerJuly 22, 2010/s/ Patricia D. ChiodoPatricia D. ChiodoVice President, Controller and Interim
Chief Financial OfficerJuly 22, 2010
#### CITY OF VINITA PARK, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ralph A. BURNS, Jr., Defendant/Appellant.

No. 70007.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Daniel L. Goldberg, St. Charles, for Defendant/Appellant.

Nathan S. Cohen, St. Louis, for Plain-tifiTRespondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from judgments imposing fines upon jury convictions for municipal ordinance violations relating to the display of signs. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the Commission are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-7-2014

Clarence Haley v. Kintock Group

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2806

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Clarence Haley v. Kintock Group" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 1044.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/1044
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-2806

____________

CLARENCE HALEY,

 Appellant

v.

THE KINTOCK GROUP; ROBERT T. LATIMER, MD; DOMINIC FORTE; 

SADIQI MUHAMMAD; JOSEPH, first name unknown; 

BROWN, first name unknown; IZAGUIRRE, first name unknown; 

CLARK, first name unknown

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 2-11-cv-05606)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 3, 2014

Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA and ROTH, Circuit Judges

____________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

____________

At the direction of the Court an amended opinion will be issued in this matter. 

The amendments to the opinion do not alter the judgment of this Court and as such the 

deadline for filing a petition for rehearing remains October 14, 2014.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk
Date: October 7, 2014

CJG/cc: Clarence Haley

Anthony P. Pasquarelli, Esq.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143810 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143810 

 COA: 296500 

ROGER LEE KELLY, Saginaw CC: 07-029171-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 31, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 407

To terminate the International Space Station Alpha program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. ZIMMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Science

A BILL

To terminate the International Space Station Alpha program.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION.

4 The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and

5 Space Administration may not enter into any contract in

6 furtherance of the International Space Station Alpha pro7 gram. The Administrator shall take such other actions as

8 are necessary to terminate the International Space Station

9 Alpha program.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HELMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN GUEST, KATHLEEN SOLOMON,

OSCODA COUNTY, KEVIN GRACE,

DAVE STENZEL, ED POKRZYWNICKI,

and RONALD NIGHTINGALE,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-11697

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER

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

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on_July 14, 2011.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On May 4, 2009, William Helmer (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed this pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for

partial summary judgment, filed on January 5, 2011 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56. The Court has referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

for all pretrial proceedings.

On May 9, 2011, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) in which she recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff seeks

summary judgment with respect to his claims of falsification of documents and malicious

prosecution. Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s R&R states that the Court previously considered

Plaintiff’s arguments and dismissed his claims except for the malicious prosecution claim

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 142 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1432
2

against Defendant Nightingale and the individual capacity excessive force claims against

Defendants Guest, Pokrzywnicki, and Stenzel. R&R 2. Magistrate Judge Majzoub further

notes that Plaintiff’s motion makes no mention of the malicious prosecution claim against

Defendant Nightingale.

At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub advises the parties that

they may object and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. 

Id. She further advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a

waiver of any further right of appeal.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct.

466 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991);

United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981)). No objections to the R&R have

been filed.

The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached

by Magistrate Judge Majzoub. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

D. Randall Gilmer, Esq.

G. Gus Morris, Esq.

Mark E. Donnelly, A.A.G.

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

William Helmer, #140677

Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility

1727 West Bluewater Highway

Ionia, MI 48846

2:09-cv-11697-PJD-MKM Doc # 142 Filed 07/14/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1433
Exhibit 10.1


 


SECOND
AMENDMENT


OF
THE


MEDGENICS,
INC.


STOCK
INCENTIVE PLAN


(AS
AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE MARCH 5, 2012)


 


Whereas,
Medgenics, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Medgenics, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective
March 5, 2012) (the “Incentive Plan”);


 


Whereas,
pursuant to and subject to Section 9.14 of the Incentive Plan, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company
may amend the Incentive Plan at any time;


 


whereas,
pursuant to the First Amendment of the Medgenics, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective March 5,
2012), effective as of April 30, 2013, following requisite approval of the Company’s stockholders, the maximum number of
shares of the Company’s common stock authorized to be issued under the Incentive Plan was increased by 1,700,000, from 2,478,571
to 4,178,571;


 


Whereas,
the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Incentive Plan to increase the maximum number
of shares of the Company’s common stock authorized to be issued under the Incentive Plan by 2,000,000, from 4,178,571 to
6,178,571; and


 


Whereas,
pursuant to Section 9.14 of the Incentive Plan, an amendment that materially increases the aggregate number of shares that
may be issued under the Incentive Plan generally must be approved by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company
in accordance with applicable stock exchange rules.


 


Now,
therefore, effective as of the date of approval by a majority of votes cast by the stockholders of the Company in accordance
with applicable stock exchange rules, the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars:


 


		1.	The first sentence of Section 4.01 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 


“            4.01            Number
of Shares. The maximum number of shares authorized to be issued under the Incentive Plan shall be 6,178,571 shares
of the Company’s Common Stock (all of which may be granted as Incentive Stock Options); provided, however,
that for so long as the Company’s Common Stock is admitted for trading on the Official List of the United Kingdom Listing
Authority or on AIM, the market operated by London Stock Exchange plc, on the date of grant of any Award hereunder (the ‘Relevant
Grant Date’), the aggregate number of shares in respect of which Awards granted on or after December 4, 2007 and which remain
outstanding and unexercised shall not exceed 12% of the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued and outstanding
on the Relevant Grant Date.”


 


		2.	In all other respects the Incentive Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
|    
  **Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to****18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906****of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MASS Petroleum Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Chayko, 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, 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.

By: /s/*Gary Chayko*Gary ChaykoPresident and Chief Executive Officer

April 21, 2010

                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                            PERVASIVE SOFTWARE INC.
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Pervasive Software Co., Ltd. - Japan

Pervasive Software GmbH - Germany

Pervasive Software N.V. - Belgium

Pervasive Software (Ireland) Limited - Ireland

Pervasive Software Limited - United Kingdom

Pervasive Software North Asia Limited - Hong Kong

Pervasive Software S.A.R.L. - France

Pervasive Software Company  -  Canada

EveryWare Development Inc. - Canada

EveryWare Development Corporation - Canada

Pervasive Acquisition Corporation - Canada


Note:  EveryWare Development Inc., EveryWare Development Corporation, Pervasive
Acquisition Corporation and Pervasive Software Company were amalgamated under
Canadian law and continued as a single entity, Pervasive Software Company,
effective August 1, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cr-20236 

Related Case No. 13-10452 

QUENTON THOMAS WHITSELL, 

 

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S SEPTEMBER 10, 2014

LETTER/ MOTION REQUESTING TRANSCRIPTS [#110] 

On September 10, 2014, the Clerk of the Court docketed a letter/motion filed by Defendant

Quenton Thomas Whitsell. The court will deny the motion without prejudice because, at the time

of the filing, Defendant was represented by counsel. Thus, all filings must be made by the attorney

of record. 

Defendant is not entitled to represent himself while simultaneously represented by counsel.

There is no right to “hybrid” representation that would result in simultaneous or alternating selfrepresentation and representation by counsel. A person represented by counsel must rely upon that

counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Olson, 576 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (8th Cir. 1978); Daniels, 572

F.2d at 540; Ennis, 560 F.2d at 1075; Williams, 534 F.2d at 123; United States v. Hill, 526 F.2d

1019, 1024-25 (10th Cir. 1975); Move Org. v. City of Phila., 89 F.R.D. 521, 523 n.1 (E.D.Pa.1981);

United States ex rel. Snyder v. Mack, 372 F.Supp. 1077, 1078-79 (E.D.Pa.1974); cf. Storseth v.

Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1352-53 (9th Cir. 1981) (once counsel is appointed, prisoner has no right

to assistance from inmate writer). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will only accept motions filed by Defendant’s attorneys

2:09-cr-20236-GAD-MKM Doc # 111 Filed 09/16/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 950
of record. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Whitsell’s Motion/Letter Request for Transcripts [#110]

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 /s/ Gershwin A. Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 16, 2014

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

date, September 16, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 /s/ Tanya Bankston 

Case Manager 

(313) 234-5215

S:\Judge Drain Orders Approved & Ready for Entry\09-20236 US v. Whitsell (Deny Trans Req W-out Prej)KJD.wpd 2

2:09-cr-20236-GAD-MKM Doc # 111 Filed 09/16/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 951
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, Karl E. Groth, Ph.D., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Bioheart, Inc. (the “registrant”);

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport 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 thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrantand have:

a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b) designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;

c) evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

May 14, 2010

/s/ Karl E. Groth,Ph.D.                

Name: Karl E. Groth, Ph.D.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 893 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 893

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 6, 2009.
Whereas the New York Yankees are the most successful franchise in the history of 
        Major League Baseball;
Whereas prior to this year the Yankees had won 26 World Series Championships, 
        the most in the Major Leagues;
Whereas this historic franchise is located in the Bronx and is known as the 
        ``Bronx Bombers'';
Whereas the Yankees franchise has included all-time great players;
Whereas for many years the Yankees played baseball in the historic Yankee 
        Stadium;
Whereas this year the Yankees opened a new stadium and hope to emulate the 
        success achieved in the ``House that Ruth Built'';
Whereas during the 2009 regular season, the Yankees had the best record in 
        baseball, going 103-59;
Whereas the Yankees finished at the top of the American League East Division;
Whereas the Yankees went on to beat the Minnesota Twins 3 games to 0;
Whereas the Yankees then faced off against the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in 
        the American League Championship Series, and emerged victorious in 6 
        games;
Whereas that victory represented the 40th American League Pennant that the 
        Yankees have won;
Whereas the Yankees were matched up against a valiant Philadelphia Phillies 
        squad for the World Series title;
Whereas the Yankees were able to defeat the defending World Series Champions by 
        4 games to 2;
Whereas this victory represents the Yankees' 27th World Series Championship win;
Whereas this number of championship wins is 17 more than their next closest 
        competitor;
Whereas the contributions of the Yankees' players throughout the season were all 
        vital in securing the title; and
Whereas the Yankees were guided to victory by Manager Joe Girardi, General 
        Manager Brian Cashman, President Randy Levine, and the leadership of 
        Hank and Hal Steinbrenner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates--
            (1) the 2009 Major League Baseball World Series Champions, the New 
        York Yankees, for an outstanding season and a record 27th World Series 
        Championship win; and
            (2) the players, coaches, staff and leadership of the Yankees 
        organization for their great success.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```