alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0363 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSEPH EDWARD KNOWLES,

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 January 20, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

December 15 2022

12/15/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0363
Case No. 11-1426 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ORDER

 

FMIO, INC.; RICHARD A. GARST 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants 

v. 

SUMMERFIELD, TOWNSHIP OF; et al 

 Defendant - Appellee 

 

 Upon consideration of the appellant's motion to reinstate the case, 

 And it appearing that the default which led to dismissal of the appeal has been cured, 

 It is ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is GRANTED. 

 

ENTERED PURSUANT TO RULE 45(a), 

RULES OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Leonard Green, Clerk 

Issued: July 29, 2011 

___________________________________ 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 48 filed 07/29/11 PageID.720 Page 1 of 2 Case: 11-1426 Document: 006111027506 Filed: 07/29/2011 Page: 1 (1 of 2)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Leonard Green 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: July 29, 2011 

 

Ms. Cindy Rhodes Victor 

Law Office 

3290 W. Big Beaver Road 

Suite 501 

Troy, MI 48084 

 Re: Case No. 11-1426, FMIO, Inc., et al v. Summerfield, Township of, et al

Originating Case No. : 09-12561 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

 The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 

s/Scott J. Swearingen 

Case Manager 

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7011 

cc: Mr. Frederick Lucas 

 Mr. David J. Weaver 

Enclosure 

Case 2:09-cv-12561-BAF-MKM ECF No. 48 filed 07/29/11 PageID.721 Page 2 of 2 Case: 11-1426 Document: 006111027507 Filed: 07/29/2011 Page: 1 (2 of 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 Anoteros, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George G. Chachas, Chief
      Executive Officer and 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 the best of my knowledge and
      belief:




(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 result of operations of the Company.






Date:
            August 2,
            2007                               
            /s/  George G.
            Chachas
 By:
          George G. Chachas
 Chief
          Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-24-00235-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H., J.H., AND N.R.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22-08-88894-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. No costs are 

assessed against either party, as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs and 

appellee is exempt from all costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 8, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 405 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 405

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty enhancement 
             for the use of juveniles in Federal offenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Zimmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty enhancement 
             for the use of juveniles in Federal offenses.

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

SECTION 1. OFFENSE.

    Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
``Sec. 21. Use of children in Federal offenses
    ``(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, whoever, being at least 
18 years of age, uses a child to commit a Federal offense, or to assist 
in avoiding detection or apprehension for a Federal offense, shall--
            ``(1) after a previous conviction under this subsection has 
        become final, be subject to 3 times the maximum imprisonment 
        and 3 times the maximum fine otherwise provided for the Federal 
        offense in which the child is used; and
            ``(2) in any other case, be subject to 2 times the maximum 
        imprisonment and 2 times the maximum fine for such offense.
    ``(b) As used in this section--
            ``(1) the term `child' means a person who is under 18 years 
        of age; and
            ``(2) the term `uses' means employs, hires, uses, 
        persuades, induces, entices, or coerces.''.

SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
item:

``21. Use of children in Federal offenses.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

RUEMONDO GOOSBY,

Petitioner,

Case Number 09-12363-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

THOMAS K. BELL,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING AS DUPLICATIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Petitioner Ruemondo Goosby is currently confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility

in Adrian, Michigan. He has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Petitioner was convicted of carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a, following a jury

trial in the Oakland County Circuit Court and was sentenced to ten to forty years imprisonment in

2007. In the instant action, Petitioner raises claims alleging that the admission of a telephone threat

violated his confrontation rights, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to such

evidence, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury,

and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in various respects.

Petitioner has previously filed a federal habeas action challenging the same conviction and

raising the same claims in this court. See Goosby v. Bell, No. 09-11995 (E.D. Mich. June 25, 2009)

(Tarnow, J.). A suit is duplicative and subject to dismissal if the claims, parties, and available relief

do not significantly differ between the two actions. See, e.g., Barapind v. Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d

1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (internal citations omitted). Here, Petitioner’s habeas petition

1:09-cv-12363-TLL-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 70
-2-

challenges the same conviction, raises the same claims, and seeks the same relief as his previouslyfiled petition. Consequently, the present petition is subject to dismissal as a duplicate petition. See,

e.g., Flowers v. Trombley, No. 06-10726, 2006 WL 724594 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2006); Harrington

v. Stegall, No. 02-70573, 2002 WL 373113 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2002). See also Davis v. United

States Parole Comm’n, 870 F.2d 657 (table), 1989 WL 25837, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 7, 1989) (stating

that a district court may dismiss a habeas petition as duplicative of a pending habeas petition when

the second petition is essentially the same as the first petition).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

AS DUPLICATIVE.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 11, 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 11, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-12363-TLL-MKM Doc # 4 Filed 09/11/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 71
Case 2:09-cr-20264-SJM-PJK ECF No. 32, PageID.102 Filed 11/04/09 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:09-cr-20264-SJM-PJK ECF No. 32, PageID.103 Filed 11/04/09 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:09-cr-20264-SJM-PJK ECF No. 32, PageID.104 Filed 11/04/09 Page 3 of 3
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-30142 Summary Calendar

NaKisha Jackson,

Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus

Kristy Wilson,

Defendant—Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:20-CV-1626

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * NaKisha Jackson appeals the dist rict court’s dismissal of her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). She contends that a default judgment sh ould have been entered against the

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 5, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-30142 Document: 00516381810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2022No. 21-30142

2 defendant, Kristy Wilson, because Wil son was properly served and failed to file an answer within the time pr ovided under Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i). There is no entitlement to a default judgment as a matter of right. Lewis v. Lynn , 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001). Even if we assume that Jackson satisfied the servic e requirements in this case, there was no abuse of discretion on the issue of a default judgment given the district court’s determination that Jackson’s factual alle gations, even if found true, failed to state a claim upon which re lief could be granted. See id. at 767-68. While Jackson’s appellate brief recounts the facts underlying her claims, she does not brief any argument challenging the district court’s legal conclusion that she failed to state a clai m of malicious prosecuti on because one of the elements of such a claim un der Louisiana law is a te rmination of the disputed legal proceeding in the plaintiff’s fa vor. She likewise fails to brief any argument challenging the district cour t’s determination that Louisiana law disallows claims of defama tion or perjury based on a witness’s testimony in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Thus, Jackson has failed to show that
those determinations were erroneous. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (recognizing th at even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to maintain them).
To the extent that Jackson raises a challenge regarding disqualification of a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), she has not shown that there was an abuse of discretion on the issue. See United States v. Mizell , 88 F.3d 288, 299- 300 (5th Cir. 1996). Nor has she demo nstrated any error in the procedure employed in the district court. See Bazrowx v. Scott , 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED , and Jackson’s motion to expedite the appeal is DENIED

. Case: 21-30142 Document: 00516381810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2022
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45784-45785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17963]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 28, 2008, Boehringer 
Ingelheim Chemicals, Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 
23805, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II
Lisdexamfetamine (1205).....................  II
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II
Methadone (9250)............................  II

[[Page 45785]]

 
Methadone intermediate (9254)...............  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished 
pharmaceuticals.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than October 6, 2008.

    Dated: July 29, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-17963 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
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 PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory S. Weishar, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, 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 Corporation.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/    GREGORY S. WEISHAR           
|Gregory S. Weishar                  
|Chief Executive Officer and Director
|August 3, 2009
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 403

To repeal the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, require the sale of all

loans made under such Act, and authorize the Secretary of Agriculture

to make loans to electric generation and transmission cooperatives which

are unable to obtain needed financing in the private sector.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To repeal the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, require

the sale of all loans made under such Act, and authorize

the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans to electric

generation and transmission cooperatives which are unable to obtain needed financing in the private sector.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ACT OF

4 1936.

5 (a) REPEAL.—The Rural Electrification Act of 1936

6 (7 U.S.C. 901–950b) is hereby repealed.
2

•HR 403 IH

1 (b) NO EFFECT ON EXISTING CONTRACTS.—The re2 peal made by subsection (a) shall not be construed to per3 mit the violation of any contract entered into before the

4 enactment of this Act.

5 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law to the

6 Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration

7 is deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of Agri8 culture.

9 SEC. 2. SALE OF OUTSTANDING LOANS.

10 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later

11 than the end of the 3-year period that begins with the

12 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agri13 culture shall sell to private investors all interests of the

14 United States in the loans made under the Rural Elec15 trification Act of 1936 before the enactment of this Act

16 that are outstanding at the time of the sale, for cash only,

17 on the most favorable terms to the Federal Government

18 that are then obtainable.

19 SEC. 3. LOANS FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC GENERATION AND

20 TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVES.

21 Section 306(a)(15) of the Consolidated Farm and

22 Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(15)) is amend23 ed by adding at the end the following:

24 ‘‘(E) The Secretary may make loans, not to exceed

25 $1,000,000 for any single loan, to any cooperative associa-
3

•HR 403 IH

1 tion for the supply and distribution of electric power if

2 the Secretary determines that the association cannot ob3 tain sufficient credit elsewhere from reliable sources at

4 reasonable rates and terms for such purposes.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20025

SAMUEL L. RIDDLE, JR., HONORABLE AVERN COHN

Defendant.

___________________________________/

MEMORANDUM

Because of the publicity attendant on the progress of this case, it is important to

remind the parties and their lawyers, as well as representatives of the media of the

following:

The names and addresses of prospective jurors, jurors and persons excused from

jury service are not to be disclosed.

Contact or conversation with prospective jurors, jurors and persons excused from

jury service, as well as their family members, is not permitted during the course of the trial;

this restriction does not apply once the trial is concluded.

These restrictions do not apply to the demographic component of the jury once it is

impaneled.

Dated: January 8, 2010 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

on this date, January 8, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cr-20025-MOB-MAR Doc # 105 Filed 01/08/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 448
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MINHAS ENERGY CONSULTANTS,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Manmohan Minhas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                            /s/ Manmohan Minhas
                                            --------------------------------
Date: August 9, 2007                        Manmohan Minhas
                                            Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDI LI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-74304

Agency No. A201-057-044

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Sandi Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

 

* 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

JUN 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 13-74304 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th 

Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies as to whether Li’s family continued attending an 

unregistered church after his arrest, and on inconsistencies as to the issuance of a 

letter from Li’s pastor in China and Li’s notarial certificate of his birth. See id. at 

1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of 

circumstances”). Li’s explanations for these inconsistencies do not compel a 

contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the 

absence of credible testimony, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Li’s CAT claim 

because it was based on the same evidence found not credible and the record does 

not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Li would be 

tortured if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.