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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAWN MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-12513-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

FEENY CHRYSLER-DODGE OF

GAYLORD, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel discovery [Dkt. # 18] filed on April

14, 2010. Defendant requests that the Court compel Plaintiff to produce personal bank and financial

records that it requested in a second request for production of documents, to which Plaintiff

responded by objecting on March 30, 2010. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s records are relevant

because Plaintiff has alleged violations of the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

(“COBRA”) of 1985, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1161. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not comply

with COBRA notice provisions, and Defendant believes that Plaintiff’s records will demonstrate that

she could not afford COBRA insurance, thereby undermining the credibility of her claims.

In a response [Dkt. # 21] filed on April 20, 2010, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant first sought

Plaintiff’s bank records in a second set of interrogatories and request for production of documents

served on October 16, 2009. Plaintiff objected to the discovery request in her answers served on

November 24, 2009. On December 3, 2009, via a letter, Plaintiff advised Defendant of her belief

that Smith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co., 128 F.3d 1380 (10th Cir. 1997), supported her position that

Plaintiff’s financial information was not relevant to defend her failure to notify claims. Defendant
-2-

did not file a motion to compel. Rather, on March 1, 2010, Defendant served Plaintiff with another

discovery request for Plaintiff’s personal records, which Plaintiff objected to on March 30, 2010.

Defendant did not file a reply in support of its motion to compel. Significantly, the

authorized period for discovery in this matter closed on March 31, 2010. Defendant’s motion to

compel was not filed until two weeks after the close of discovery. Moreover, Defendant has not

provided an explanation for the delay, when it was on notice of Plaintiff’s objection to producing

her personal financial records as early as November 2009. Based on the tardiness of Defendant’s

motion, and the lack of an explanation for the tardiness, Defendant’s motion will be denied. See,

e.g., Ginett v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 166 F.3d 1213 (table) 1998 WL 777998, at *4-5 (6th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to compel discovery [Dkt. # 18] is

DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 12, 2010

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 May 12, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45267-45268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17807]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 09/79-0454]


Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption 
Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of 
Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 
160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt 
security financing to Goodmail Systems, Inc., 2465 Latham Street, 
Mountain View, CA 94040.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and 
Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., all Associates of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Goodmail Systems, 
Inc., and therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an 
Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate

[[Page 45268]]

Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 
Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E8-17807 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GERALD ALAN SHORT,

Petitioner, Case No. 09-12171

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

MITCH PERRY,

Respondent.

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

On September 27, 2012, the petitioner filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. On

August 31, 2012, the Court entered an order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, overruling the petitioner’s objections, and denying the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. In the same order, the Court denied a certificate of appealability. The petitioner’s motion

for a certificate of appealability is moot, as the Court has already denied the relief the petitioner

seeks. 

Further, the Court would deny the petitioner’s motion even if it were construed as a motion

for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(g)(1) when the moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the

parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich.

LR 7.1(g)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or

plain. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations

omitted). However, motions for reconsideration should not be granted when they “merely present

the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich.

2:09-cv-12171-DML-PJK Doc # 27 Filed 10/04/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 754
-2-

LR 7.1(g)(3). The petitioner’s motion raises only issues ruled on by the Court, both expressly and

by reasonable implication.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability

[dkt. #26] is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: October 4, 2012

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 October 4, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-12171-DML-PJK Doc # 27 Filed 10/04/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 755
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON.PATRICK J.DUGGAN

CIVIL NO.09-12865

TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS’ EMPLOYEE

BENEFITS FUND, ET.AL,

Plaintiff(s),

-vDAVIS SPECIALTY CONTRACTING, INC., ET.AL

 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 December 1, 2009.

 

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Due notice of an Order to Show Cause why the above case should not be dismissed

for lack of progress pursuant to Local Rule 41.2 has been sent to counsel of record. The

Court has received no response; therefore

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

DISMISSED.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: December 1, 2009

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

on December 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12865-PJD-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 12/01/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 31
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 8, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20568 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARKER ALLEN JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-567-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marker Allen Jones appeals from his conviction for armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2, and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and 2. Jones argues that the district court erred in not allowing him to present evidence in support of his motion to suppress by holding a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978).No. 03-20568 -2- This court reviews the denial of a Franks hearing de novo. United States v. Martin , 332 F.3d 827, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Jones has not made the preliminary showing required to establish entitlement to a Franks hearing. United States v. Brown , 298 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1134 (2003).
AFFIRMED.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 23

- 11294 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus MICHAEL PAUL GIANFRANCESCO, a.k.a. Bwc694200, a.k.a. M.H.,
Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida USCA11 Case: 23-11294 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 23

- 11294 D.C. Docket No. 9:22

- cr - 80127

- DMM

- 5

____________________ Before W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, and B RASHER and A BUDU , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED

. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

– 53 (11th Cir. 1993) ( sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly a nd voluntarily)

. USCA11 Case: 23-11294 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2024 Page: 2 of 2
1

 Plaintiffs’ complaint does not contain a Count II.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH CLIATT and 

CHARLOTTE CLIATT,

Plaintiffs, No. 09-12556

v. Hon. John Corbett O'Meara

CITY OF NOVI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs’ complaint, which was removed to this court on June 29, 2009, sets forth the

following counts: Count I, violation of civil rights; Count III, conspiracy to violate civil rights;

and Count IV, violation of M.C.L. 780.655 and the Michigan Constitution.1

Although alleged civil rights violations brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are

cognizable in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining allegations present claims

based on state law. Because the parties to this matter are not diverse, this court declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the latter claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); Padilla v. City of

Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

5:09-cv-12556-JCO-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 29
2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Count IV of Plaintiffs’ complaint is

REMANDED to Oakland County Circuit Court.

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: July 31, 2009

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

record on this date, July 31, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-12556-JCO-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 30
| Subsidiaries of PHC, Inc.         | Percent Ownership | Type of Business                                                      |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |              |                                                                  |
| Detroit Behavioral Institute, Inc | 100%              | Youth residential psychiatric care                                    |
| North Point-Pioneer, Inc.         | 100%              | Out-patient psychiatric care                                          |
| PHC of MeadowWood, Inc.           | 100%              | In-patient psychiatric care                                           |
| PHC of Michigan, Inc.             | 100%              | In-patient psychiatric care                                           |
| PHC of Nevada, Inc.               | 100%              | Out-patient psychiatric care                                          |
| PHC of Utah, Inc.                 | 100%              | Substance abuse                                                       |
| PHC of Virginia, Inc.             | 100%              | Substance abuse                                                       |
| Renaissance Recovery, Inc.        | 100%              | Youth chemical dependency care                                        |
| Seven Hills Hospital, Inc.        | 100%              | In-patient psychiatric care                                           |
| Wellplace, Inc                    | 100%              | Contract support services and out-patient  psychiatric care |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

P&J INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-12257

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Delphi’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the

reasons set forth in an opinion issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that a judgment is entered in

Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of One-Hundred-Forty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero

Cents ($145,000.00).

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 21, 2009

copies to:

Joseph E. Papelian, Esq.

Douglas W. King, Esq.

2:09-cv-12257-PJD-DAS Doc # 18 Filed 10/21/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 97
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4042 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4042

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street 
     in New York City, New York, as the ``Ted Weiss United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 10, 1996

  Mr. Nadler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street 
     in New York City, New York, as the ``Ted Weiss United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION

    The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City, 
New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Ted Weiss United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 2 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ted Weiss 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CARLTON BRUCE NORTHERN, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No.09-11555

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

FELICIA M. COURTRIGHT, et al

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

10/23/2009, and noted that no objections were filed by either party, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is accepted and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: November 17, 2009

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 11/17/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 69
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November

17, 2009.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11555-JF-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 11/17/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 70
2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 552   Filed 05/29/15   Pg 1 of 3    Pg ID 15921

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 552   Filed 05/29/15   Pg 2 of 3    Pg ID 15922

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 552   Filed 05/29/15   Pg 3 of 3    Pg ID 15923
176 La. 895

#### WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. DAMPSKIBS AKTIESELSKABET MAI et al.

No. 31923.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1933.

John D., M. A. & Edwin H. Grace, of New Orleans, for appellant Dampskibs Aktiesel-skabet Mai.

Bond, Curtis, Hall & Foster, of New Orleans, for appellant New Orleans Coal & Bis-so Towboat Co.

Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll, of New Orleans, for appellee Western Union Telegraph Co.

BRUNOT, Justice.

Both defendants herein appealed from an adverse in solido judgment rendered against them and in favor of the plaintiff. The Union Indemnity Company became the surety on both appeal bonds.

The issues herein are identical with those raised in the case of Irish Levy Electrical Co., Inc., v. Mike Moss (La. Sup.) 147 So. 22, this day decided.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned in that case, it is ordered that this case be remanded to division B of the civil district court for the parish of Orleans, with instructions to inquire into and pass upon the sufficiency of the two appeal bonds herein, and of the solvency of the surety on each of said bonds, and, if the bonds or either of them be found defective, or the surety thereon insolvent, the appellants or appellant whose appeal may be affected thereby, be required, in the manner and form, and as provided by Act No. 112 of 1916, to furnish a new and satisfactory appeal bond, with a solvent surety or sureties for the amount required by law, and to make due report thereof to this court.
Exhibit 32.2





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 China Jianye Fuel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haishen Fei, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





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





Date: November 15, 2010

/s/ Haishen FeiName:  Haishen Fei

Name:  Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service


Red-White Clay Creeks Watershed, Pennsylvania and Delaware

AGENCY: USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: ``Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact''.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 
CFR, Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(formerly the Soil Conservation Service) Guidelines (7 CFR, Part 650); 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not 
being prepared for the Red-White Clay Creeks Watershed, Chester County, 
Pennsylvania and New Castle County, Delaware.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janet L. Oertly, State 
Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Suite 340, One 
Credit Union Place, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-2993, telephone 
(717) 782-2202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally-assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, Janet L. Oertly, State Conservationist, has 
determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact 
statement are not needed for this project.
    The project concerns a plan for water quality improvement. The 
planned works of improvement involve extensive accelerated land 
treatment and the acquisition of conservation easements. Land treatment 
measures include agricultural waste management systems; erosion and 
sediment control on cropland; restoration of wetlands; establishment of 
riparian forest buffers; and stabilization of severely eroding 
streambanks. Conservation easements included perpetual floodplain and 
wetland easements.
    The ``Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact'' (FONSI) has 
been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency. A limited number 
of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at 
the above address. The environmental assessment and basic data may be 
reviewed by contacting Janet L. Oertly.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until thirty (30) days after the date of this publication in the 
Federal Register.
Janet L. Oertly,
State Conservationist.

``(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance Program No. 10.904--Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials.)''

[FR Doc. 96-17184 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M