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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-12776

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

MICAH S. BRADFORD, A/K/A

MICHAEL S. BRADFORD,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ALTERNATE SERVICE [DOC. 5]

Plaintiff, United States of America, moves for alternate service of process to be

effected upon defendant Micah or Michael S. Bradford. Service upon an individual may

be effected pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, here

being Michigan. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Michigan law provides that, “[o]n a showing that

service of process cannot reasonably be made as provided by this rule, the court may

by order permit service of process to be made in any other manner reasonably

calculated to give the defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to

be heard.” M.C.R. 2.105(I)(1). Plaintiff has shown that service of process cannot be

made on defendant Bradford under M.C.R. 2.105(A), by delivering the Summons and

Complaint to defendant personally. 

In support of its motion for alternate service, plaintiff provides the affidavit of the

process server, which states that a total of three attempts were made to serve

defendant at his last known address. A request made to the Rochester Hills Postmaster

confirms that defendant does not have a change of address on file, and that his last

2:09-cv-12776-GCS-PJK Doc # 6 Filed 11/23/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 19
2

known address is 2209 Norfolk, Apt. 201, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309. This is the

address at which the process server attempted service all three times. 

Plaintiff suggests as an alternate means of service of process mailing to and

posting at defendant’s last known address. The court approves of this alternate means

of service of process as reasonably calculated to give respondent actual notice, as

outlined below. Now, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s petition for order permitting substituted

service of process is GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff may serve the defendant with

the Summons and a copy of the Complaint by:

(A) Posting a copy thereof, along with a copy of the petition and this order for

substituted service of process, at defendant’s residence at 2209 Norfolk, Apt. 201,

Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309;

(B) Mailing a copy of same by certified mail (return receipt requested) to the

defendant’s residence noted above; and

(C) Mailing a copy of same by first class mail to the defendant’s residence noted

above. 

The plaintiff shall file a certificate confirming service as provided herein.

So Ordered.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 23, 2009

2:09-cv-12776-GCS-PJK Doc # 6 Filed 11/23/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 20
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record on November 23, 2009, by

electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee 

Secretary/Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12776-GCS-PJK Doc # 6 Filed 11/23/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 21
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 02

- 00 736

- CV

Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company , Appellant

v.

Duncan Roberts; Dolores Robertson, Individually and as next friend of

Danae R. Robertson

, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN200988 , HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company filed its notice of appeal on November 25,

2002, and the clerk =

s record was fil ed on January 16, 2003. On February 26, 2003, we sent appellant

notice that its appellant =

s brief was overdue and that its appeal would be subject to dismissal if a motion for

extension of time was not filed by March 3, 2003. To date, appellant has not responded to this Court = s

correspondence.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of ProsecutionFiled: April 17, 2003`
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Under
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Samsonite Corporation (the 'Company') for the annual period ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the 'Report'), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|By     | /s/RICHARD H. WILEY                              | 
|------ | ------------------------------------------------ | 
|Name:  | Richard H. Wiley                                 | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary | 
|Date:  | May 31, 2007                                     | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 407 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION.

    The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration may not enter into any contract in furtherance of the 
International Space Station Alpha program. The Administrator shall take 
such other actions as are necessary to terminate the International 
Space Station Alpha program.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF OUTSTATE

MICHIGAN TROWEL TRADES

HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-12856

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ABBOTT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

JUDGMENT

The above entitled matter has come before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and in accordance with the

court’s order granting that motion entered on May 10, 2010,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby GRANTED in favor

of plaintiffs in the amount of $57,936.75 plus attorney fees and post-judgment interest.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: s/Josephine Chaffee 

 DEPUTY COURT CLERK

Dated: May 10, 2010
Exhibit 31.1

 Certification of W.E. Tucker, CEO of Global 1 Investment Holding Corporation.,
  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 302 of the Sarbanes-
                               Oxley Act of 2002.)

I, W.E. Tucker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global 1 Investment
Holdings Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:/s/ W.E. Tucker

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

W.E. Tucker, CEO
November 8, 2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6435

EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-129-AM) Submitted: May 24, 2002 Decided: June 17, 2002 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edghill Leo Francis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition, in which he challenged conditions of his confinement, without prejudice. Because Francis may amend his complaint to proceed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) rather than § 2241, the district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not a final order and is not subject to appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.2d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re: Refrigerant Compressors Case No. 2:09-md-02042

Antitrust Litigation

Honorable Sean F. Cox

United States District Court

___________________________/

ORDER

REGARDING DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

In an order issued this date, this Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed class

action settlement between the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and most, but not all, Defendants. 

Pursuant to that Order, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ case is currently stayed as to all Settling

Defendants.

The Court is holding a Status Conference with the parties, as to the Indirect Purchaser

Plaintiffs’ case, on February 11, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. 

The Court hereby ORDERS that, if the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs intend to pursue their

claims against the Non-Settling Defendants, Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs shall

attend the February 11, 2014 Status Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: January 9, 2014

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

January 9, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 461 Filed 01/09/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 11408
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 12

                             CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
<TABLE>
                         RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                    000's OMITTED
<CAPTION>
                                      FISCAL YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                               1996       1995        1994         1993         1992
                               ----       ----        ----         ----         ----
<S>                          <C>        <C>        <C>           <C>         <C>      
Net Income (Loss) before 
 extraordinary gains         $21,848    $32,604    $(11,352)     $ 7,695     $(78,880)
Fixed Charges                 26,262     27,792      30,202       28,645       30,886
                             -------    -------    --------      -------     --------
                             $48,110    $60,396    $ 18,850      $36,340     $(47,994)
                             =======    =======    ========      =======     ========                
Fixed Charges                                                  
  Interest                   $22,872    $25,071    $ 27,891      $25,947     $ 27,318
  Interest re: Rentals         3,170      2,501       2,146        2,698        3,568
  Amortization of                                              
    Deferred Debt Expense        220        220         165    
                             -------    -------    --------      -------     --------
Total Fixed Charges          $26,262    $27,792    $ 30,202      $28,645     $ 30,886
                             =======    =======    ========      =======     ========
                                                              
Ratio of Earnings to
    Fixed Charges            1.8 to 1   2.2 to 1   .62 to 1     1.3 to 1           --

</TABLE>
#### Shollenberger *versus*Brinton. Mervine *versus*Sailor *et al.*Davis *et al. versus*Burton *et al.*Kroener *versus*Colhoun. Sandford *et al. versus*Hays. Graham *versus*Marshall *et al.*Laughlin *et al. versus*Harvey.

1. Congress has constitutional power to issue treasury notes of the United States and make them lawful money and a legal tender for the payment of debts. ;

2. The Act of Congress, of February 25th 1862, authorizing the issue of such notes, is constitutional.

3. The principal sum which redeems a ground-rent, is a debt within the meaning of the act.

4. A ground-rent, payable in “ * * * dollars, lawful silver money of the United States of America,” is redeemable by such notes. *Shollenberger*v. *Brinton.*

5. So the half-yearly instalment of a ground-rent, payable in “ * * dollars, lawful silver money of the United States, each dollar weighing 16 pwt. 6 gr. *at least.” Mervine*v. *Sailor.*

*106. So a ground-rent payable in “ lawful money.” *Davis*v. *Burton.*

7. So a ground-rent payable in “ lawful money of the United States.” *Kroener*v. *Oolhoun.*

8. So a certificate of deposit of “ gold, payable * ** **in like funds with interest.” *Sandford v. Hays.*

9. So a note for a sum of money marked in margin “ $14,145 specie,” which by bankers’ rules meant gold or silver coin. *Graham*v. *Marshall.*

10. So a note for “ * * * dollars in gold.” *Laughlin*v. *Harvey.*

11. Where the errors assigned are not sustained by a majority of the Supreme Court, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

The principal question in all these cases being the effect of the Acts of Congress making treasury notes a legal tender in payment of debts, they were considered and decided together.
**EXHIBIT 32.0**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.1350)

 

Theundersigned executive officer of Trans World Corporation (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-KSB for the year ended December31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrants.

 
| Date:  March 5, 2004 | /s/ Rami S. Ramadan                                                                                    |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Name:  Rami S. Ramadan  Title:  President, Chief Executive  Officer, and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1768-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated June 14, 2008, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         July 25, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 14, 2008.

Green County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-17682 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Case No. 09-12950

Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA,

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 11, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order requesting defendant John

J. Bravata to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violating the Court’s

order freezing the defendants’ assets. In this motion, the government alleges that on August 10,

2009, John J. Bravata borrowed approximately $37,000 against two of his life insurance policies that

were subject to the asset freeze without obtaining the Court’s authorization to do so. 

The Court finds that the plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to require a response from

John J. Bravata. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant John J. Bravata must appear before this Court

in person at Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI

48226, Room 860, on Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. and SHOW CAUSE, if any there

be, why he should not be held in civil contempt of this Court’s order freezing assets and punished

accordingly.

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 64 Filed 09/14/2009 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that any written explanation defendant John J. Bravata desires to

offer must be submitted to the Court on or before September 28, 2009.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 14, 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 September 14, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 64 Filed 09/14/2009 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 10.6

Schedule of Lease Supplements entered into in 1996 and substantially similar to
                                 Exhibit 10.5

1.       Supplement No. 18 to Master Lease Agreement, dated March 30, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Waynesboro, Georgia.

2.       Supplement No. 19 to Master Lease Agreement, dated April 1, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Eufaula, Alabama.

3.       Supplement No. 20 to Master Lease Agreement, dated April 4, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Florence, Alabama.

4.       Supplement No. 21 to Master Lease Agreement, dated July 3, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Decatur, Alabama.

5.       Supplement No. 22 to Master Lease Agreement, dated August 15, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in LaGrange, Georgia.

6.       Supplement No. 23 to Master Lease Agreement, dated October 31, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Simpsonville, South Carolina.

7.       Supplement No. 24 to Master Lease Agreement, dated November 4, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Conyers, Georgia.

8.       Supplement No. 25 to Master Lease Agreement, dated December 18, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Greenville, Alabama.

9.       Supplement No. 26 to Master Lease Agreement, dated December 23, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Seneca, South Carolina.

10.      Supplement No. 27 to Master Lease Agreement, dated December 27, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Commerce, Georgia.

11.      Supplement No. 28 to Master Lease Agreement, dated December 27, 1996,
         covering Jameson Inn located in Georgetown, South Carolina.