alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 1 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 2 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 3 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 4 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 5 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 6 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 7 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 8 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 9 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 10 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 11 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 12 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 13 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 14 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 15 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 16 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 17 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 18 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 19 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 20 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 21 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 22 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 23 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 24 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 25 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 26 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 27 of 28
Case 2:09-cv-12955-DML-MJH Document 12 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 28 of 28
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM NEWMAN, 242710,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-13351

v. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

PERCY CONERLY,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner William Newman has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has been served with the petition and an answer to the petition is due

on March 2, 2010. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of

counsel, as well as his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has reviewed

Petitioner’s motion and application and denies them for the reasons stated herein.

Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel to assist him with his case. Petitioner, however, has

no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman

v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505

U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “‘[A]ppointment

of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not

a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v.

Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). Neither discovery nor an evidentiary hearing are

necessary at this time, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. See 18

2:09-cv-13351-PDB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 53
2

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8(c). Accordingly, the Court

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. The Court

will bear in mind Petitioner’s request if, following a review of the pleadings and state court record,

the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner need not file an additional

motion concerning this issue.

Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. At the time he filed his

petition, however, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas action. Given that Petitioner

has paid the filing fee and there are no other required fees for this proceeding, his application to

proceed in forma pauperis is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s application

to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 29, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

December 29, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13351-PDB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 54
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-63,243]

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 24, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Leiner Health Products, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Action Staffing Groups of Wilson and Kelly Services, Inc., Wilson, North Carolina.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this, 24th day of July, 2008.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-17885 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 1 of 19    Pg ID 12766

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 2 of 19    Pg ID 12767

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 3 of 19    Pg ID 12768

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 4 of 19    Pg ID 12769

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 5 of 19    Pg ID 12770

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 6 of 19    Pg ID 12771

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 7 of 19    Pg ID 12772

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 8 of 19    Pg ID 12773

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 9 of 19    Pg ID 12774

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 10 of 19    Pg ID 12775

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 11 of 19    Pg ID 12776

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 12 of 19    Pg ID 12777

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 13 of 19    Pg ID 12778

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 14 of 19    Pg ID 12779

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 15 of 19    Pg ID 12780

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 16 of 19    Pg ID 12781

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 17 of 19    Pg ID 12782

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 18 of 19    Pg ID 12783

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 481   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 19 of 19    Pg ID 12784
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LOTOYA ZAMORA,

Parent of JMZ, a Minor,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13260

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on September 30, 2010 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

On August 10, 2010, Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court deny the motion for summary

judgment brought by Plaintiff Lotoya Zamora, who is proceeding pro se on behalf of her

daughter JMZ, and that the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant

Commissioner of Social Security be granted. No objections have been filed to the R & R.

Upon reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment, and the administrative record, the Court fully concurs in the analysis

of the Magistrate Judge, and adopts the R & R in its entirety. Accordingly,
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s

August 10, 2010 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the R & R, Plaintiff’s

December 7, 2009 motion for summary judgment (docket #15) is DENIED, and

Defendant’s January 5, 2010 motion for summary judgment (docket #16) is GRANTED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 30, 2010

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

on September 30, 2010, by electronic mail and upon Lotoya Zamora, 1371 Seward,

Detroit, Michigan 48202 by ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 391 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 391

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the foreign tax 
      credit and deduction for taxes paid in lieu of income taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the foreign tax 
      credit and deduction for taxes paid in lieu of income taxes.

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

SECTION 1. DENIAL OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT AND DEDUCTION FOR TAXES PAID IN 
              LIEU OF INCOME TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Section 903 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to credit for taxes in lieu of income, etc., taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of 
part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
striking the item relating to section 903.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
23tf& -21*, 1i COURTOF CRIMINALAPP teik \/uR-35. 3/0-^7

~VU^4- are. ^o^ <2,u<_-,tfwC, Q& *S\rC>\t- &^qI Pec*W^ ( 

### ~~^L\s boui-4: "I-"s dUo^-V 4d U-^ ^V 0^ 4rr9-w~r Sxr^eV uli'A5 «6t\Urc 4o \oo^^l^^^;X
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance  sheet and the  consolidated  statement of income filed as
part of the report on Form 10K-SB and is  qualified in its entirety by reference
to such report on Form 10-KSB.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000915127
<NAME>                              PHC, Inc
<MULTIPLIER>                        1
<CURRENCY>                          US

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1.000
<CASH>                              551,713
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       9,778,960
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,850,470
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    7,644,018
<PP&E>                              2,578,257
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,250,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      15,887,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               9,238,977
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         1,360
<COMMON>                            77,466
<OTHER-SE>                          3,548,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        15,887,809
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    20,378,760
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       20,112,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    2,129,193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  837,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (460,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                        79,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (612,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           (72,450)
<NET-INCOME>                        (612,671)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.23)



</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy DICKERSON, Appellant. Timothy DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 62150, 64545.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 26, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 23, 1994.

*723Tamara L. Detloff, Frank Fabri, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by jury trial of one count of second degree murder, one count of voluntary manslaughter, one count of second degree assault, one count of unlawful use of a weapon, and three counts of armed criminal action, in violation of §§ 565.-021, 565.023, 565.060, 571.030, and 571.015, RSMo 1986, respectively. Defendant was sentenced as a Class X offender to terms of life imprisonment on the murder count, to be served consecutively with fifteen years on the manslaughter count, to be served consecutively with ten years on the assault count, to be served concurrently with a five year sentence on the unlawful use of a weapon count and three seven year sentences on the armed criminal action counts. Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeals both the judgment entered upon his conviction and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, which appeals have been consolidated. We affirm.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2884

_____________________________

JEFFERY WHITMAN CARMICHAEL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

February 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMUEL RIDDLE, JR., and MARY

WATERS,

Defendants.

 /

Case Number: 09-20295

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MARY WATERS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mary Waters' Motion to Withdraw

Plea (Doc. No. 113). Waters also asked the Court to set a hearing on her request. 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs pleas. Rule 11(e)

reads, "After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of

guilty. . .and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack." FED.

R. CRIM. P. 11(e).

Waters pleaded guilty to filing a fraudulent tax return on May 20, 2010, pursuant

to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement. On October 6, 2010, the Court sentenced her to a oneyear term of probation. The Judgment was filed October 7, 2010. Given the clear

language of Rule 11(e), and the fact that this Court already had sentenced Waters when

this motion was filed, the Court DENIES Waters' motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

 MARIANNE O. BATTANI

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 20, 2010
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon counsel of record and Mary Waters on

this date by ordinary mail and electronic filing.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSino Charter Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Bradley W. Miller, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 11thday of May, 2007.

BRADLEY W. MILLERBradley W. MillerChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


































---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3, No. 333-13363, Form S-3, No. 333-03205, Form S-8, No. 333-81863, and
Form S-8, No. 333-81865) of The Mills Corporation and in the related
Prospectuses of our report dated February 20, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Mills Corporation included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


McLean, Virginia
March 23, 2001
| (1)    | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Freshwater Technologies, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2010 (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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc.                                                                       |

|   | /s/D. Brian Robertson                                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | D. Brian Robertson                                             |
|   | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director                |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
EX-4.31



 EXHIBIT 4.31 

Letter of Consent 
 I, Hu
Wenjun (ID Card No.: 320204197107222328), am the duly married spouse of Ge Weiguo (ID Card No.: 320203196607100019). I hereby acknowledge, understand and agree that: 

1. In accordance with the Equity Pledge Agreement he signed on November 29, 2011, Ge Weiguo pledges to Acorn Information Technology
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 25% of the equity interest he holds in Shanghai Acorn Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Network”) and in Beijing Acorn Trade Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Acorn”), respectively. 

2. In accordance with the provisions of the Exclusive Purchase Agreement entered into on November 29, 2011, Ge Weiguo irrevocably grants
Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. the right to at any time purchase or designate any third party including China DRTV, Inc. to purchase all or part of the equity interest he holds in Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn and I have no
objections against the above grant and its exercise. 
 3. In accordance with the Power of Attorney he signed on May 25, 2013, Ge
Weiguo irrevocably grants Gao Weiji his shareholder’s voting right at the shareholders’ meetings of Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn, including but not limited with respect to the sale or transfer of all or any part of the equity
interest he holds in Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn, and his right to vote on such matters as the designation or appointment of a director of the company at the shareholders’ meetings of Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn. 

4. I have no objections against the equity pledge, the exclusive right to purchase, and the setup, grant and exercise of the Power of Attorney
as described above and acknowledge that I will not now or in the future assert any claims or take any actions that would oppose, prevent or hinder the exercise of any of the above rights. 

 

	
	/s/ Hu Wenjun
	
	May 25, 2013