alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Glen MORGAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 64304, 64313.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Gary Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, Matthew J. O’Connor, St. Joseph, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 415

For the relief of Gerald Albert Carriere.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Gerald Albert Carriere.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER FOR GERALD ALBERT CARRIERE OF

4 GROUNDS FOR INELIGIBILITY TO BECOME

5 CITIZEN.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 315 of

7 the Immigration and Nationality Act, Gerald Albert

8 Carriere may not be considered permanently ineligible to

9 become a citizen of the United States on the basis that,

10 prior to August 1, 1966, he—
2

•HR 415 IH

1 (1) applied for exemption or discharge from

2 training or service in the Marine Corps of the Unit3 ed States on the ground that he is an alien; or

4 (2) was relieved or discharged from such train5 ing or service on such ground.

6 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

7 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if Gerald Albert

8 Carriere applies for a visa or for a change or adjustment

9 of status and pays the appropriate fees within 2 years

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Richard MARASKY, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 68451, 68452.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 24, 1996.

Daniel P. Reardon, Jr., Timothy Hill Bat-tern, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintififrespondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a jury of sexual abuse in the first degree, § 566.100, RSMo Supp.1993, for which he was sentenced to thirty days in jail and ordered to pay a two thousand dollar fine. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 10016 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Demarcus Rakestraw,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17 - CR - 469 - 1

**__________________ ____________**  Before **Jolly, Jones**  **,** and **Engelhardt ,**  Circuit Judges. **Per Curiam :**  ***** Demarcus Rakestraw , federal prisoner # 27612 - 177 , appeals the district court’s denial of his request for compassionate release. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by not evaluating his declining health alongside his inability to receive the COVID - 19 vaccine when denying him relief .

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 7, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10016 Document: 00516813869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2023No. 23 - 10016

2 T he district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The court adequately considered Rakestraw ’s arguments in favor of compassionate release , but it concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a ) weighed against it . See Chavez - Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 - 67 (2018) ; United States v. Escajeda , 58 F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2023) . The record supports the district court’s independent assessment of the § 3553(a) factors , and it is ther efore unnecessary for us to discuss Rakestraw’s remaining claim s . See United States v. Jackson , 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022 ) ; Ward v. United States , 11 F.4th 354, 360 - 62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693 - 94 . **AFFIRM ED**  . Case: 23-10016 Document: 00516813869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2023
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Aspect L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




















By:             /s/         Jennifer Magro





Name:                     Jennifer Magro


Title:                       Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 29, 2011
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>

     In connection with the quarterly report of Tongji Healthcare Group, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
Yun-hui Yu, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Wei-dong Huang,
the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of their knowledge:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the company.


 November 11, 2009                       /s/ Yun-hui Yun
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Yun-hui Yu, Principal Executive Officer


 November 11, 2009                       /s/ Wei-dong Huang
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Wei-dong Huang, Principal Financial
                                         Officer
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 March 31, 2010 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.      /s/ George G. Chachas By: George G. Chachas Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: April 29, 2010  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.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph L. EVERHART, Appellant. Joseph L. EVERHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 49524, WD 51141.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 2, 1996.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Consolidated appeal from convictions of forcible rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1992, and forcible sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo Supp. 1992, and from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Mr. Ever-hart alleges reversible error in the denial of a mistrial when a witness suggested a prior police photograph was used in a photographic line-up and when a juror slept through a *619portion of the cross-examination of the complaining -witness. He also claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to object to the prosecutor’s reference to him as a “human predator” in closing argument.

The judgments of the trial court and the motion court are affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

SHIMROZE MOTIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13354

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the April 30, 2010 “Opinion and Order (1) Overruling Plaintiff’s

Objections . . .,”

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Shimroze Motin. 

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 30th day of April, 2010.

 

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: S/Deborah J. Goltz 

Deputy Clerk
#### Norvell E. KNOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68165.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 13, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Sp. Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

On June 22, 1994, movant, Norvell E. Knox, was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections to serve a ten-year sentence as a prior drug offender on the charge of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202 RSMO Cum.Supp.1993 and a concurrent seven-year sentence as a prior and persistent offender on the charge of unlawful possession of a concealable firearm, § 571.070 RSMo 1986. On September 27, 1994, ninety seven days after delivery to the Department of Corrections, he filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief.

The motion court dismissed the motion because it was filed too late. Rule 24.035(b) allows ninety days after delivery to the custody of the Department of Corrections to file a motion for post conviction relief. “The time limitations contained in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are valid and mandatory.” *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). Dismissal of the motion was mandatory. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRENCE GARRETT,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-13141 

vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

STATE TROOPER ADAMS, et.al., 

 Defendants. 

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS

AND VIDEO RECORDINGS

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Documents

and Audio/Video Recordings, dated October 27, 2009 (Docket #16). On November 2, 2009,

the Court Ordered that Plaintiff file an Amended Complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff was to

provide the Court with the names and updated addresses of each defendant named in the

Amended Complaint, so that service by the United States Marshal may be effected.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Subpoena Documents and Audio/Video Recordings is DENIED since

service of process has not yet commenced and the viability of Plaintiff’s claim remains

undetermined. If this case survives summary judgment, Plaintiff may renew this motion. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Donald A. Scheer

DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: November 6, 2009

______________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on November 6, 2009 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court

sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was

mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on November 6, 2009: Terrence Garrett.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

2:09-cv-13141-AC-VMM Doc # 20 Filed 11/06/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 70
#### INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 6084.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 21, 1937.

E. S. Ballard, Edward W. Ford, and Minier Sargent, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Charles Fahy, National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of the parties, which •has been filed herein, and due consideration having been given, it is ordered that the petition of the International Harvester Company to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued by said Board on November 12,1936, and the request of the said Board for enforcement of said order, be withdrawn and dismissed, all without prejudice to the right of the National Labor Relations Board hereafter to petition this court for the enforcement of said order of said Board_in the event such procedure appears to the Board to be advisable or necessary.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4089

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide that recently enacted

provisions requiring payment of Federal benefits in the form of electronic

funds transfers do not apply with respect to benefits payable under

the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title II

of the Social Security Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide that

recently enacted provisions requiring payment of Federal

benefits in the form of electronic funds transfers do

not apply with respect to benefits payable under the

old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program

under title II of the Social Security Act.

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

•HR 4089 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR OASDI BENEFITS FROM MAN2 DATORY PAYMENT IN FORM OF ELECTRONIC

3 FUNDS TRANSFERS.

4 Paragraph (3) of section 3332(j) of title 31, United

5 States Code (added by section 31001(x)(1)(A) of the Om6 nibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of

7 1996 (Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; Public

8 Law 104–134)) is amended in the last sentence by insert9 ing after ‘‘1986’’ the following: ‘‘or any benefit payment

10 under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance pro11 gram under title II of the Social Security Act’’.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION 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;
and
 c)
    
    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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLARD L. SLOAN, EUGENE J. 

WINNINGHAM, and JAMES L. KELLEY,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

BORGWARNER INC., BORGWARNER 

DIVERSIFIED TRANSMISSION 

PRODUCTS INC., and BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS, 

 Defendants. 

Case 2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM 

U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

BORGWARNER’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL 

APPENDIX OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AUTHORITIES 

Tab Authority 

Cases 

36 Harnden v. Jayco, Inc., 496 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2007) 

37 Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Haddock, 460 F. App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2012) 

Statutes and Rules 

38 Federal Rule of Evidence 703 

39 Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 

Other Authorities 

40 10B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2738 (3d ed. 

1998 & Supp. 2012) 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 114 Filed 07/12/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 7101
 2 

Dated: July 12, 2012 

Elisa Angeli Palizzi (P52088) 

(angeli@millercanfield.com) 

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. 

150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

313.496.7635 

313.963.6420 fax 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Bobby R. Burchfield

Bobby R. Burchfield 

(bburchfield@mwe.com) 

Joshua David Rogaczewski 

(jrogaczewski@mwe.com) 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

600 13th Street, Northwest 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202.756.8000 

202.756.8087 fax 

Attorneys for BorgWarner Inc., BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Products Inc., and 

BorgWarner Flexible Benefits Plans

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 114 Filed 07/12/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 7102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 12, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing BorgWarner’s 

Second Supplemental Appendix of Summary Judgment Authorities with the Clerk of the 

Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all ECF participants. 

s/Bobby R. Burchfield

Bobby R. Burchfield 

(bburchfield@mwe.com) 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

600 13th Street, Northwest 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202.756.8000 

202.756.8087 fax 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 114 Filed 07/12/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 7103
EXHIBIT 31.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Ramin (“Ron”) Najafi, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;




2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(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; and




(c) 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




5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors  (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(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 4, 2009




/s/ Ramin ("Ron")NajafiRamin (“Ron”) NajafiChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 -0589 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MIKEL STETSON LETHERMAN,

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 December 27, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

November 15 2022

11/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0589