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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

EVERSON R. FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13455

HERITAGE GLEN TOWNHOUSE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

AND STAYING BRIEFING

On September 24, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis. (9/24/2009 Order.) In Plaintiff’s application, he indicated that he had

no income and no assets other than $300, and that he provided $100 per week in

support to his son, Kamari Miller. On October 1, 2009, in a companion case, the

Honorable Judge Rosen denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(Case No. 09-13671, 10/1/2009 Order.) In that application to proceed in forma

pauperis, filed fifteen days after the application filed in this case, Plaintiff alleged that he

had no income, no assets, and an obligation to pay $400 per month to support Kamari

Miller. In a well-reasoned and persuasive order, however, Judge Rosen doubted the

veracity of Plaintiff’s assertion of indigency. Judge Rosen noted that Plaintiff’s

complaint, in Case No. 09-13671, alleged that he was enrolled as a student; that he

occupies an apartment; and that he had received student loans. The court questioned

how Plaintiff “has been able to meet his basic subsistence needs over the past year

(and the needs of an apparent dependent) without the benefit of any money from any

Case 2:09-cv-13455-RHC-VMM Document 24 Filed 11/10/2009 Page 1 of 2
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-13455.Francis.Order.Show.Cause.IFP.bsc.wpd

2

source.” The court therefore denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis. In

light of Judge Rosen’s reasoning and the information pleaded by Plaintiff in the

companion case, this court now questions the veracity of Plaintiff’s claim of indigency. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) “the court shall dismiss the case at anytime if the court

determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue.” The court will therefore order

Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed because of an

untrue allegation of poverty. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff Everson R. Francis IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, on or

before November 25, 2009, why this case should not be dismissed because of an

untrue allegation of poverty. If Plaintiff fails to show cause the court will be required to

dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that briefing on all pending motions shall be stayed 

until resolution of this Order. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 10, 2009

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

on this date, November 10, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

Case 2:09-cv-13455-RHC-VMM Document 24 Filed 11/10/2009 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17637]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13193-000]


FFP Missouri 12, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 25, 2008.
    On April 22, 2008, FFP Missouri 12, LLC (Free Flow Power 
Corporation) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the 
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Missouri 
River 12 Project, to be located in the Missouri River in Warren and 
Franklin Counties, Missouri.
    The proposed Missouri River 12 project consists of: (1) 2,520 
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 50.4-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a 
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Missouri River Project 12 would have an average annual 
generation of 220,752-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irwin, Free Flow Power 
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone: 978/
232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13193) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17637 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationsof CEO and CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation (the “Company”) forthe fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marcello Bottoli,as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Marcello Bottoli |                                  |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Name:                | Marcello Bottoli                      |
| Title:               | President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:                | May 15, 2006                     |
|                      |                                       |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00138

- CV

PERRY PRICE

, Appellant

v.

AMOS PHILLIPS AND KA ITLYN PHILLIPS

, Appellee s

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 16

- 44889

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Perry Price, filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking

relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is

dismissed.

JOHN E. NEILL

JusticeP rice v. Phillips Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davi s, and

Justice Neill

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 22, 2019

[CV06]
1

In their motion to stay, Defendants seek to stay this matter pending their appeal of

Judge Taylor’s August 23, 2010 decision denying in part their motion for judgment on the

pleadings.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALIA BAHOORA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 09-13387

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

(DOC. 33) AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 34)

On August 26, 2009, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants alleging

wrongful suspension of Plaintiff Alia Bahoora’s insurance license. The matter initially

was assigned to the Honorable Anna Diggs Taylor, but was reassigned to the undersigned

pursuant to Administrative Order 10-AO-036 on December 16, 2010. At that time, two

motions were pending before the Court: a motion to stay and a motion for summary

judgment filed by Defendants State of Michigan, Michigan’s Office of Financial and

Insurance Regulation (“OFIR”), and Luke Hasbany (hereafter collectively “Defendants”)

on October 20, 2010.1

 Judge Taylor referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Mona K.

Majzoub on November 17, 2010.

On July 11, 2011, Magistrate Judge Majzoub filed a Report and Recommendation

2:09-cv-13387-PJD-MKM Doc # 41 Filed 08/16/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 440
2

(R&R) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to stay and deny without

prejudice their motion for summary judgment. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate

Judge Majzoub advises the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R

within fourteen days of service upon them. (R&R at 4.) She further specifically advises

the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further

right to appeal.” (Id.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.

The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions

reached by Magistrate Judge Majzoub.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this matter is STAYED pending Defendants’

appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Date: August 16, 2011 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to:

Mark L. Menczer, Esq.

Timothy M. Lessing, Esq.

Dee J. Pascoe, Esq.

Jason R. Evans, Esq.

Mary Elizabeth Lippitt, Esq.

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

2:09-cv-13387-PJD-MKM Doc # 41 Filed 08/16/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 441
Exhibit 32.1




                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                       OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     The  undersigned  hereby  certify that, to the best of the knowledge of the
undersigned,  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2007 filed by PHC,  Inc.  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained  in the report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.



Date:  September 28, 2007               By:   /s/  Bruce A. Shear
                                                   _________________________
                                                   Bruce A. Shear, President
                                                   and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  September 28, 2007               By:   /s/  Paula C. Wurts
                                                   _________________________
                                                   Paula C. Wurts,
                                                   Chief Financial Officer








                                       93
**EXHIBIT 10.17**

 

 

**WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF**

**NON-QUALIFIED EXECUTIVE RETIREMENTRESERVE**

 

 

The Compensation Committee of the Board ofDirectors (the “Board”) of Trans World Corporation (the “Company”) hasrecommended, and the Board has directed, that the Company accrue for the yearended December 31, 2003 a non-qualified executive retirement reserve of$100,000 per year of employment, to be retroactive to year 2000, so that$300,000 is to be accrued for the year ended December 31, 2003 and $200,000 isto be accrued for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

----
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

                        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 Political Calls, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, David Gallagher, President/CFO 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, 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.

/s/ David Gallagher
----------------------------
    David Gallagher
    President/CFO


Date  May 15, 2007
      ------------


<PAGE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MANUEL PINEDA-FERNANDEZ, 

a.k.a. Jorge Pineda-Fernandez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50591

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02276-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Pineda-Fernandez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

FILED

APR 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50591

we affirm.

Pineda-Fernandez contends that the district court erred in applying a

16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because assault with a

deadly weapon under section 245(a) of the California Penal Code is not a

categorical crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by United States v.

Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009). Pineda-Fernandez’s argument that

we are not bound by Grajeda in light of the subsequent case of Johnson v. United

States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010), is without merit. See Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d

638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010) (a three-judge panel may ignore circuit precedent only

where it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority);

Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that

Johnson, which concerned a statute “akin to California's simple battery statute,”

did not undermine the court’s prior conclusion that a conviction for willful

infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant was a categorical crime of

violence).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20349

VALENTINE I. BALOGUN,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

Pending before the court is Defendant’s “Motion in Limine” asking the court to

rule that certain evidence is inadmissible. First, Defendant asks the court to rule that

evidence of marijuana allegedly found in Defendant’s house is inadmissible. The United

States indicated that it will not seek admission of the evidence under Federal Rule of

Evidence 404(b), but it may use the evidence to impeach Defendant should he testify

that no drugs were in his home. The court will therefore deny as moot Defendant’s

motion on this point but will revisit the issue of the evidence’s admissibility in the event

that Defendant testifies and the United States seeks to impeach Defendant with the

marijuana evidence. Second, Defendant asks the court to prohibit government agents

from testifying to the similarity between Defendant’s signature and the signature found

on certain packages allegedly delivered to Defendant. The United States indicated that

it will offer no such testimony. The court will therefore deny as moot Defendant’s motion

on this point. Third, Defendant asks the court to rule that evidence of certain deliveries

allegedly made to Defendant is inadmissible. For the reasons stated on the record, the

2:09-cr-20349-RHC-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 10/21/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 59
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-20349.Balogun.Motion.In.Limine.bsc.wpd

2

evidence is admissible as proof of the alleged course of conduct alleged by the United

States in Count One of the Indictment. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion in Limine” [Dkt. # 20] is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 21, 2009

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

on this date, October 21, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cr-20349-RHC-RSW Doc # 21 Filed 10/21/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 60
##### 



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brazil Fast Food
Corp. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I,
Ricardo Figueiredo Bomeny, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
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: 1. The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 31, 2003 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 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 results of operations of the
Company. Date: April 14, 2004
    
    /s/ Ricardo Figueiredo BomenyRicardo Figueiredo BomenyChief Executive Officer and Acting
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                                              Jurisdiction
                                                                      of
                  Subsidiary                                  Organization
                  ----------                                  ------------
          1. Dan River Factory Stores, Inc..................  Georgia
          2. The Bibb Company...............................  Delaware
          3. Dan River International Ltd....................  Virginia
          4. Dan River B.V..................................  The Netherlands
          5. Dan River de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.........  Mexico
          6. Maquilas Pinnacle, S. de R.L. de C.V...........  Mexico
          7. Adercorp, S. de R.L. de C.V....................  Mexico
          8. Textiles Vega de Madero, S. de R.L. de C.V.....  Mexico
          9. Servicios a Corporaciones, S. de R.L. de C.V...  Mexico
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 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
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IILisdexamfetamine (1205)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIMethadone (9250)
II( print 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 32.01








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-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Lerma, 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.











/s/ Michael Lerma


By: Michael Lerma


Chief Financial Officer





Dated: August 10, 2011





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.