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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY DENHAM,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERT LORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 2:09-cv-12740

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket

entry 14) AND DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT PAUL D. BORJA

This is a civil action to undo a foreclosure, in which plaintiff pro se, Johnnie Denham,

has named Albert Lord, Paul D. Borja, Bolhouse, Vander Hulst, Risko & Barr, P.C. and

Warren C. Evans as defendants. The matter has been referred by the Court to Magistrate

Judge R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings. 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Whalen,

filed on December 21, 2009. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

recommended that defendant Paul D. Borja be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

serve the summons and complaint within the time prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The

Magistrate Judge also notified the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen

days of service. No party has filed objections to the report and recommendations.

The Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and

recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to

2:09-cv-12740-SJM-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 02/05/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 183
2

Magistrate Judge Whalen’s report and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this Court need not and will not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation

[docket entry 14] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Paul D. Borja is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE for failure of the plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint upon Borja

within the time prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: February 5, 2010

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

counsel of record on February 5, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12740-SJM-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 02/05/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 184
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antoine J. Campbell, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. All concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45755-45756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EG08-53-000, etc.]


Wessington Wind I, LLC, et al.; Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt 
Wholesale Generator Status

July 31, 2008.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wessington Wind I, LLC..................................     EG08-53-000
Airtricity Pyron Wind Farm, LLC.........................     EG08-54-000
Airtricity Indale Wind Farm, LLC........................     EG08-55-000
Airtricity Panther Creek Wind Farm, LLC.................     EG08-56-000
Wolf Ridge Wind, LLC....................................     EG08-57-000
West Valley Leasing Company LLC.........................     EG08-58-000
Winnebago Windpower LLC.................................     EG08-59-000

[[Page 45756]]

 
Sheldon Energy LLC......................................     EG08-60-000
Gunsight Mountain Wind Energy, LLC......................     EG08-61-000
Willow Creek Energy, LLC................................     EG08-62-000
Valencia Power, LLC.....................................     EG08-64-000
CER Generation II, LLC..................................     EG08-65-000
Tvolumne Wind Project, LLC..............................     EG08-66-000
CPV Maryland, LLC.......................................     EG08-67-000
Montgomery L'Energia Power Partners LP..................     EG08-68-000
Silver Star I Power Partners, LLC.......................     EG08-69-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

    Take notice that during the month of June 2008, the status of the 
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 
366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18006 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
JOEL S. BAUM P.A.    Member
                     American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
                     Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants
                     AICA SEC. & Private Companies Division


Capitol Communities Corporation
25550 Hawthorne Blvd.
Suite 207
Torrence, CA. 90505


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


  We consent to the use of our firm's audited financial statements by reference
in the Registration Statement Form S-8 of Capitol Communities Corporation (the
"Company").  Such audited financial statements have been incorporated by
reference from the Company's Annual Report filed on 10K-SB for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 1996.

January 9, 1997
Coral Springs, Florida

                                  /s/ Joel Baum, P.A.
                                  -------------------
                                      Joel Baum, P.A.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JOHN GADDY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

C. E. DUCART, Associate Warden; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15149 

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-04558-HSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy appeals pro se the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth 

Amendment and due process claims relating to the calculation of his parole 

eligibility date. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 21 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-15149 

a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 

(9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gaddy’s action because Gaddy failed 

to allege facts sufficient to show that his parole eligibility date was miscalculated. 

See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se 

pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Cal. Penal Code § 1170.1(c) 

(discussing aggregation of consecutive sentences for in-prison offenses). 

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Gaddy’s pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 11) are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. DA 19

- 0 547 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. BEAU HERMAN MILLER ,

Defendant and Appellant

.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 5 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 8 2021

02/08/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0547
2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 482   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 1 of 1    Pg ID 12802
#### Frank MACKETT, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 4309.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 24, 1938..

Lyman G. Wheeler, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Alfred Anderson, of Norfolk, Va., for appellant.

Sterling Hutcheson, U. _ S. Atty. and John V. Cogbill, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Richmond, Va., and H. H. Holt, Jr., Asst. Ü. S. Atty., of Norfolk, Va.

PER CURIAM.

Case dismissed under rule 20 in accordance with agreement of counsel.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 444 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 444

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, 
 importation, and sale of any projectile that may be used in a handgun 
            and is capable of penetrating police body armor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Shays, Ms. Slaughter, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. 
   Markey, and Mr. Deutsch) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, 
 importation, and sale of any projectile that may be used in a handgun 
            and is capable of penetrating police body armor.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cop-Killer Bullet Ban Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORTATION, AND SALE OF 
              PROJECTILES THAT MAY BE USED IN A HANDGUN AND ARE CAPABLE 
              OF PENETRATING POLICE BODY ARMOR.

    (a) Expansion of Definition of Armor Piercing Ammunition.--Section 
921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that 
        the Secretary determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be 
        capable of penetrating body armor.''.
    (b) Determination of the Capability of Projectiles to Penetrate 
Body Armor.--Section 926 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(d)(1) The Secretary shall determine whether a projectile is 
capable of penetrating body armor, in accordance with regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection. Such regulations shall provide for 
uniform testing of projectiles against the Body Armor Exemplar, based 
on standards developed in cooperation with the Attorney General of the 
United States. Such standards shall take into account, among other 
factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of 
the barrel of the handgun from which the projectile is fired and the 
amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.
    ``(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' 
means body armor that the Secretary, in cooperation with the Attorney 
General of the United States, determines meets minimum standards for 
protection of law enforcement officers.''.
                                 <all>
```
**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 Amendment Number 2 to the Annual Report of Largo Vista Group,
      Ltd (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, Albert Figueroa, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, certifies
      to
      the best of his knowledge, 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.





Date:
      November 21, 2005





/s/
      Albert Figueroa


Albert
      Figueroa, Principal Accounting Officer





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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 436

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 11 (legislative day, OCTOBER 10), 1995

Received

AN ACT

To require the head of any Federal agency to differentiate

between fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or

vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in issuing

certain regulations, and for other purposes.

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

HR 436 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Edible Oil Regulatory

3 Reform Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND

5 GREASES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

7 (c), in issuing or enforcing any regulation or establishing

8 any interpretation or guideline relating to a fat, oil, or

9 grease under any Federal law, the head of any Federal

10 agency shall—

11 (1) differentiate between and establish separate

12 classes for—

13 (A) animal fats and oils and greases, and

14 fish and marine mammal oils, within the mean15 ing of paragraph (2) of section 61(a) of title

16 13, United States Code, and oils of vegetable

17 origin, including oils from the seeds, nuts, and

18 kernels referred to in paragraph (1)(A) of such

19 section; and

20 (B) other oils and greases, including petro21 leum; and

22 (2) apply different standards to different class23 es of fats and oils as provided in subsection (b).

24 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In differentiating between

25 the class of fats, oils, and greases described in subsection

26 (a)(1)(A) and the class of oils and greases described in
3

HR 436 RDS

1 subsection (a)(1)(B), the head of the Federal agency shall

2 consider differences in the physical, chemical, biological,

3 and other properties, and in the environmental effects, of

4 the classes.

5 (c) EXCEPTION.—The requirements of this Act shall

6 not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the

7 Food Safety and Inspection Service.

8 (d) FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.—

9 (1) Section 1004(a)(1) of the Oil Pollution Act

10 of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) is amended by strik11 ing ‘‘for a tank vessel,’’ and inserting ‘‘for a tank

12 vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue

13 (except a tank vessel on which the only oil carried

14 is an animal fat or vegetable oil, as those terms are

15 used in section 2 of the Edible Oil Regulatory Re16 form Act)’’.

17 (2) Section 1016(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of

18 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2716(a)) is amended in the first

19 sentence by striking ‘‘, in the case of a tank vessel,

20 the responsible party could be subject under section

21 1004(a)(1) or (d) of this Act, or to which, in the

22 case of any other vessel, the responsible party could

23 be subjected under section 1004(a)(2) or (d)’’ and
4

HR 436 RDS

1 inserting ‘‘the responsible party could be subjected

2 under section 1004(a) or (d) of this Act’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6142

FRED FREEMAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN KINDAL; NURSE DELEON, HTC; DR. MCREE; MS. RINGOLD, PRN; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. ( 9:21

- cv - 02199

- SAL )

Submitted : June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ , RICHARDSON , and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Fred Freeman , Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes , Evan Michael Sobocinski , HOOD LAW FIRM , Charleston , South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6142 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Fred Freeman appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. Freeman v. Warden Kindal , No. 9:21

- cv - 02199

- SAL (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6142 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6523

DAVID EUGENE GREGG, SR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

NFN MCCALL,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (4:08-cv-03423-GRA)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Eugene Gregg, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Eugene Gregg, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 

2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied 

and advised Gregg that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gregg 

has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections

after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      66,427,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,023,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                   665,605
<INVENTORY>                                  3,196,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            78,264,051
<PP&E>                                     102,764,685
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,731,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             188,876,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,618,248
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,796
<OTHER-SE>                                 171,195,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               188,876,369
<SALES>                                    153,748,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           153,748,599
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              100,554,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               310,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             287,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             56,677,130
<INCOME-TAX>                                21,000,702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                35,676,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.20

FEI Company Management Bonus Program  Summary Description

FEI's Management Bonus Program ("MBP") is available to all senior managers of the company. For non-executive officers, the determination of
eligibility is made by the CEO. The CEO and Compensation Committee determine participation eligibility of executive officers and all of the executive officers of FEI participate.

The
total amount of MBP bonus money available for payment to all participants is based on a pre-tax earnings target established by the Board of Directors at the beginning of
each fiscal year. If the company achieves the earnings target, the MBP award is 100%. Between 70% and 100% of targeted earnings, a portion of the MBP is paid. No MBP awards are made if company
performance is less 70% of the targeted earnings. If earnings exceed the target by 30% then the total available amount to be paid under the MBP increases to 200% and continues on a
straight-line basis for any earnings greater than 130% of target (as illustrated in the graph at the bottom of this summary description).

Within
the total amount available under the MPB, individual pay-outs are made based on three factors:



Other
Plan Elements:



1

---





LOGO

2

---



QuickLinks