alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45788-45789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated March 11, 2008 and published in the Federal 
Register on March 19, 2008 (73 FR 14841), Varian, Inc., Lake Forest, 
25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-8810, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phencyclidine (7471).......................  II
1-Piperidinocyclohexane-carbonitrile (8603)  II
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed 
controlled substances for use in diagnostic products.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Varian, Inc. to manufacture the listed

[[Page 45789]]

basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public 
interest at this time. DEA has investigated Varian, Inc. to ensure that 
the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: July 30, 2008.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-18042 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, LLC, 

 

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 09-13368

vs. 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

RICKY ARREDONDO,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On January 7, 2011 the parties of record advised the court that a settlement had

been reached and there being no further communication with the court to the contrary; 

This case hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case may be

reopened, if necessary, by motion of either party without the payment of additional fees

or costs. Alternatively, the parties may submit an order of dismissal with prejudice

upon consummation of the settlement.

SO ORDERED.

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 31, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys/parties of record on 

 January 31, 2011 by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13368-GCS-PJK Doc # 31 Filed 01/31/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 296
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 GRANTING CORPORATE DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS’ MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR BBC EQUITIES, LLC AND BRAVATA

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC

On December 10, 2009, attorneys George B. Donnini and Joseph E. Richotte of the law firm

Butzel Long moved to withdraw as counsel for defendants BBC Equities, LLC and Bravata

Financial Group, LLC due to non-payment. None of the parties to this case voiced an objection to

the counsel’s motion. Therefore, the Court will grant the counsel’s motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the corporate defendants’ attorneys’ motion to withdraw

as counsel [dkt. # 179] is GRANTED. Attorneys George B. Donnini and Joseph E. Richotte and

the law firm Butzel Long are discharged from further responsibilities as counsel for BBC Equities,

LLC and Bravata Financial Group, LLC.

s/David M. Lawson

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: January 6, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM ECF No. 193, PageID.3601 Filed 01/06/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

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 January 6, 2010.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM ECF No. 193, PageID.3602 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-12499-PJD-MKM ECF No. 1-2, PageID.6 Filed 06/24/09 Page 1 of 1
#### Gloria N. JARVIS and Sandy Heath, Appellants, v. Timothy W. KELLY, Administrator cta, dbn of the Estate of Grayce Beck, Susan Blaney, Kathleen Osner, Grace Beck Smith, and Thomas Gerald Smith, Respondents.

No. 70050.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Robert J. Brummond, Lawrence S. Denk, Sullivan, Brummond & Denk, St. Louis, for appellants.

Donald S. Hilleary, Jerrold Chapnick, Clayton, for respondents.

Before AHRENS, C.J., and CRANDALL and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves two competing actions seeking to construe the last will and testament of decedent, Grayce Beck. The issue involved is whether the language of decedent’s last will and testament incorporates by reference the terms of decedent’s revoked trust indenture. The trial court found that the terms of the revoked trust were not incorporated into the will and held that the residuary of decedent’s estate should pass as if decedent had died intestate.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the *666parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES SHINDLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-13460

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on September 1, 2009, against Defendant seeking

relief from various state court decisions in 2004, 2006, and 2008, all brought by Michigan’s

Child Protective Services against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s caption and cover sheet identify his

complaint as one asserting a violation of his civil rights as a prisoner under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals no allegations supporting claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Rather, as set out in his “Statement of Fact” and “Relief,” Plaintiff’s suit

appears to be an attempt to appeal decisions rendered in previous state-court proceedings

brought against him by Michigan’s Child Protective Services agency. Because Plaintiff’s

suit is essentially an appeal from various state-court decisions, his Complaint is

DISMISSED. “The federal district courts do not hear appeals from state courts.” Givens

v. Homecomings Financial, No. 07-2359, 2008 WL 2121008, *1 (6th Cir. May 20, 2008).

Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “lower federal courts lack subject matter

jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts.” Id. at *1 (citing D.C. Ct. of App. v.

2:09-cv-13460-NGE-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 14
2

Feldman, 460 U.S. 426, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)).

Although “the application of Rooker-Feldman is confined to ‘cases brought by state-court

losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district

court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those

judgments,’” Plaintiff’s lawsuit “fits squarely within this narrow range of cases over which

jurisdiction does not exist.” Id. at **1-2 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). 

Plaintiff appears to be asking this Court issue an order vacating earlier state-court

orders concerning his minor son, to have this Court issue an injunction precluding Child

Protective Services from further prosecutions against Plaintiff, and to have this Court issue

an order requiring Child Protective Services to pay Plaintiff damages in an amount that

allows Plaintiff to pay for living arrangements for his son until he is released from prison.

“Because the point of this suit is to obtain a federal reversal of a state court decision,

dismissal on the grounds of Rooker-Feldman [is] appropriate.” Id. at *2.

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: September 8, 2009

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

on September 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13460-NGE-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 09/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 15
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

Case No: 09-12152

v.

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

AUTO RAIL LOGISTICS, INC., and

AUTO WAREHOUSING CO., and

JOHN CORRIGAN,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

On January 19, 2011, the Court held a hearing on the various motions in limine

filed by the parties (Docs. 27, 28, 29), and Defendants’ motion to amend the Joint Final

Pretrial Order (Doc. 36). Attending were Brian J. Nagy representing the Plaintiff, and

Thomas R. Wurst and Sarah K. Willey representing the Defendants. For the reasons

stated on the record, the Court makes the following rulings:

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding bank records

showing that Plaintiff purchased gasoline on December 26, 2007 in

Cincinnati, Ohio, is DENIED. The parties stipulated to the admission of

the records (provided they are corrected) to show that Plaintiff purchased

gas on December 25, 2007. Bank records not included in the Joint Final

Pretrial Order are excluded. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude the Defendant from “nitpicking” the

factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or in the alternative, to allow

2:09-cv-12152-VAR-MKM Doc # 39 Filed 01/24/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1043
2

Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, is DENIED. The parties may use the

pleadings to impeach witness testimony. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion in limine, to limit Defendants’ honest belief defense to the

evidence known to Defendants at the time Plaintiff was discharged is

DENIED as moot; the honest belief defense is inapplicable to interference/

entitlement claims under the FMLA. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude Defendants from arguing Plaintiff’s

medical certification is incomplete or inadequate, is DENIED.

5. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude a same decision defense, is

DENIED.

6. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude any evidence of Defendants’ oral

requests for justification for Plaintiff’s absences, is DENIED. 

7. Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the Department of Labor’s

regulations from admission at trial, is GRANTED. The relevant regulations

will be admitted at trial only to the extent they are represented by the jury

instructions. 

8. Defendants’ motion to amend the Joint Final Pretrial Order, is DENIED. 

Defendants will not be permitted to (1) add exhibits of bank records, (2)

add a witness; or (3) add exhibits of records identifying the owners of

phone numbers which appear on Plaintiff’s phone records. Defendants

will not be permitted to introduce any evidence of the identity of persons

Plaintiff called; such evidence is more prejudicial than probative. 

2:09-cv-12152-VAR-MKM Doc # 39 Filed 01/24/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1044
3

IT IS ORDERED.

s/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: January 24, 2011

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

January 24, 2011.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12152-VAR-MKM Doc # 39 Filed 01/24/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1045
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT JAY BOADWAY, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-12328

v. HONORABLE AVERN COHN

NICK LUDWICK,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Opinion and Order entered and filed on this

date, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DAVID WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

By: s/Julie Owens

Deputy Clerk

Dated at Detroit, Michigan

October 27, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Robert Boadway 

622394, St. Louis Correctional Facility, 8585 N. Croswell Road, St. Louis, MI 48880 and the

attorneys of record on this date, October 27, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-12328-AC-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 10/27/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 820
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON.PATRICK J.DUGGAN

CASE NO.09-12868

CECIL CARTER, ET.AL,

-VAMERITECH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

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

 District Courthouse, Eastern District 

 of Michigan, on February 11, 2011.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion To Enforce Settlement

Agreements. For the reasons stated on the record on February 10, 2011;

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreements be and the

same is hereby GRANTED. 

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: February 11, 2011

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

on February 11, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12868-PJD-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 02/11/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 437
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7321

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM R. TALLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-99-530, CA-01-2420-6-13)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William R. Talley, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William R. Talley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have

reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the district

court that Talley has not made a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right. See United States v. Talley, Nos. CR99-530; CA-01-2420-6-13 (D.S.C. filed July 25, 2002 & entered July

26, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
neau_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  









 




  





6











  








7
**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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of Manhattan Bancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Jeffrey M. Watson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.               The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such reports.

 

 
| Dated: November 12, 2008 |                                   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                          |                                   |
|                          |                                   |
|                          | /s/ Jeffrey M. Watson                  |
|                          | Jeffrey  M. Watson                     |
|                          | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45251-45252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17794]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee 
Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on September 3, 2008, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that 
relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the 
ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

[[Page 45252]]

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. 
Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS 
meetings were published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2007 
(72 FR 54695).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

    Dated: July 28, 2008.
Cayetano Santos,
Branch Chief, ACRS.
[FR Doc. E8-17794 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Intentionally omitted.];(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  August 14, 2007
    /s/ Albert F. BuzzettiAlbert F. BuzzettiPresident and  Chief Executive Officer 31