alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      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.  Zadar, 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
L. Tuinstra, Treasurer (Principal Accounting and 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated: April 15, 2003               By  /s/ Michael L. Tuinstra
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael L. Tuinstra
                                        Treasurer
                                        (Principal Accounting and Financial
                                        Officer)
1

The Court notes that Plaintiffs did submit a proposed stipulation and order of dismissal

without prejudice for entry by the Court. That stipulation and order, however, was not agreed to

by all Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., a Michigan 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12479

Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, Honorable Sean F. Cox

et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to investigate and police the boundaries

of their own jurisdiction.” Douglas v. E.F. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir.

1998). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court was not persuaded that Plaintiff has

adequately alleged the necessary facts to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by July 20, 2009, why this action

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

The time for responding to the Order to Show Cause has passed and Plaintiff has not filed

a written response.1

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2:09-cv-12479-SFC-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 81
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: July 23, 2009

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

23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12479-SFC-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 07/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 82
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARNELL WILEY-BEY

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 09-11423

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint for Mandamus Relief (Docket #1). This

matter is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Scheer’s Report and Recommendation that

the Complaint be dismissed (Docket #3). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation and the time for filing any objections has expired.

 After a thorough review of the court file and the Report and Recommendation, this Court will

adopt the Report and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint for Mandamus Relief. Judgment

shall be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 3, 2009

2:09-cv-11423-LPZ-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 40
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on August 3, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-11423-LPZ-DAS Doc # 4 Filed 08/03/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

MISC. NO. 09-mc-50898

-vsHON. ROBERT H. CLELAND

BRYCE BERGER,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO 

ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS

Petitioner having advised the Court that respondent, Bryce Berger, has complied

with the Internal Revenue Service Summons served upon him on November 13, 2008, by

providing the Revenue Officer with the information sought in the summons;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to enforce IRS summons brought

against respondent, Bryce Berger, by the petitioner is hereby dismissed without prejudice

and without costs.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 9, 2009

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

this date, November 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-mc-50898-RHC-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 11/09/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Wesco Distributors, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13014

Hartford Fire Ins. Co., et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Plaintiff Wesco Distributors, Inc.’s (“Wesco”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket

Entry No. 62), wherein it seeks summary judgment as to its claim on the Payment Bond against

Defendants Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Jenkins Construction, Inc. (“Jenkins”), and Piping

Components, Inc. (“PCI”) (collectively “Defendants), is currently pending before the Court. The

Court hereby ORDERS Wesco and Defendants to submit supplemental briefs to the Court.

IT IS ORDERED that, within seven days, Wesco shall submit a supplemental brief: 1)

identifying the authority for its position that it can recover under the Payment Bond even if

Jenkins/JCI fully paid Bayview for Wesco’s materials; and 2) specifying the amount of attorney

fees that Wesco seeks in this action, and attaching appropriate support for any amount requested. 

The brief shall be limited to two pages for each of the above issues.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven days, Defendants shall submit a

supplemental brief: 1) identifying authority to support their position that a retainage provision

can somehow be imputed to a subcontractor who did not agree to a retainage provision in its

contract; and 2) identifying authority to support their position that Wesco is prohibited from
making a claim on the Payment Bond because Jenkins/JCI fully paid Bayview for Wesco’s

materials. The brief shall be limited to two pages for each of the above issues.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Defendants may file a brief of no more than two (2)

pages, responding to Wesco’s supplemental brief on attorney fees, within seven days after that

brief is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: September 8, 2010

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

September 8, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Emmanuel Grafton,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-13318

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Carolyn Hampton, et. al.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court

hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is

further ordered that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute,

pursuant to Local Rule 41.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: February 16, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on February 16, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13318-NGE-PJK Doc # 29 Filed 02/16/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 52
MIE 700 Order to Show Cause in Writing (Rev. 3/98)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAY HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIFTH THIRD BANCORP,

Defendant.

/

CASE NUMBER: 09-12679

HONORABLE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

IT IS ORDERED that PLAINTIFF respond in writing or otherwise show good cause why

this action should not be dismissed for FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, within fifteen (15) days of

this order.

Date: February 18, 2010 s/John Corbett O’Meara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that on the date indicated above, I served a copy of the above order upon

counsel of record using the court’s electronic filing system.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

Case 5:09-cv-12679-JCO-DAS Document 11 Filed 02/18/2010 Page 1 of 1
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00317

- CV

M AYPHOUS C OLLINS AND A KILAH

C OLLINS

, Appellants

V

.

L ESHA S TRAUSZ AND P LANO

C OLLISION C ENTER

, I NC

. D / B / A

A UTO N ATION C OLLISION C ENTER

P LANO , Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 352

- 305020

- 18 )

September 9, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and h olds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant s Mayphous Collins and Akilah Collins shall

bear the costs of this appeal, for which let execu tion issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack Justice Dana Womack
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                        ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                AVRO ENERGY INC.
           FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mike P. Kurtanjek, am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
Officer of Avro Energy Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the nine month period ended September 30, 2009 and filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 20, 2009                By: /s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Mike P. Kurtanjek
                                          Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                          acting Chief Financial Officer, acting
                                          Principal Accounting Officer and
                                          Director
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 1 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 2 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 3 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 4 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 5 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 6 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 7 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 8 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 9 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 10 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 11 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 12 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 13 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 14 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 15 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 16 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 17 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 18 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 19 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 20 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 21 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 22 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 23 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 24 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 25 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 26 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 27 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 28 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 29 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 30 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 31 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 32 of 33
Case 2:09-cv-13214-DML-MJH Document 1 Filed 08/17/09 Page 33 of 33
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CRYSTAL G. GOLDEN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SSA, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 20-5026 

(D.C. No. 4:18-CV-00542-JFJ) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Vacatur and 

Remand to the District Court. Upon careful consideration, the joint motion is 

GRANTED. The district court’s judgment is VACATED, and this matter is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s intervening 

decision in Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 25, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT-32.1                                CERTIFICATION PER SARBANES-OXLEY ACT (SECTION 906)








I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Northern Empire Energy Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).  I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or


Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  March 14, 2014





/s/  Raniero Corsini


Raniero Corsini


Title:  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4078

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel REGENT RAINBOW.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 1996

Mr. TAUZIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

REGENT RAINBOW.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), section 12106 of

6 title 46, United States Code, section 506 of the Merchant

7 Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1156), and any agree8 ment with the United States Government, the Secretary
2

•HR 4078 IH

1 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

2 with appropriate endorsement for employment in the

3 coastwise trade for the vessel REGENT RAINBOW (Ba4 hamas official number 715557), after the completion of

5 the sale of the REGENT RAINBOW to an operator of

6 another passenger vessel measuring more that 20,000

7 gross tons that on the day before the date of the enact8 ment of this Act is in operation with a coastwise endorse9 ment.

Æ
#### FRANCOIS v. WASHINGTON NAT. INS. CO.*

No. 14390.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 13, 1933.

Rehearing Granted Feb. 27, 1933.

Wm. A. Green, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Harry R. Cabral, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

*

 For opinion annulling decree, see 146 So. 781.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit on two policies of industrial insurance claiming a sick benefit of $10 per week for thirteen weeks. There was judgment below allowing three weeks’ disability, and defendant has appealed.

Plaintiff, Thomas Francois, a negro laborer, was operated upon in the Charity Hospital for hemorrhoids, or “a right ischio rectal abscess.” He remained in the hospital about six days, and was discharged on February 3,1932. As a part of the hospital routine, a blood test was made, and plaintiff revealed as a sufferer from syphilis; the Wasserman being strongly positive. He was given the usual syphilitic treatment, salvarsan and neoarsphenamine, for a period of some four months.

The policy sued on contains the following provision: “No benefits will be paid for sickness or death resulting wholly or in part, directly or indirectly, from any venereal disease.”

It is argued that Francois’ hemorrhoids were caused by the syphilitic condition of his blood. The medical testimony, however, does not sustain this contention. In the opinion of one physician, Dr. Lombard, who testified for plaintiff, the syphilitic condition had little to do with Francois’ illness. Dr. Schroeder, testifying for defendant, said that the syphilis might have caused the hemorrhoids because “syphilis can stimulate any disease.” Our appreciation, however, of the testimony given by both doctors, is that, while syphilis may be a contributing factor in the development of hemorrhoids upon the principle that the infection in the blood would attack any weak tissue, and it' may also prolong recuperation, it does not originate the trouble. Consequently we believe that the plaintiff in this case should recover.

.The policy provides that he is entitled to be paid for the time during which he is “under the care of a physician and necessarily confined to bed.” Upon the record before us we are unable to say that Francois was necessarily confined to his bed for a period of more than one week, the time he spent in the hospital recuperating from the hemorrhoid operation. The balance of the time that he was under treatment appears to have been due to the syphilitic condition, but, in any event, we are convinced that he was not “necessarily confined to bed” during that time.

We see no reason, under the facts of this case, to award double indemnity and attorney’s fees as authorized by Act No. 310 of 1910 in cases involving arbitrary delay in the payment of policy benefits.

• For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from will be amended so as to reduce the amount allowed plaintiff from the sum of $30 to the sum of $10, and, as thus amended, affirmed, the defendant to pay the costs of both courts.

Amended and affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAREN SUE BOES,

Petitioner, CASE NO. 09-CV-12279

HON. PAUL D. BORMAN

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MILLICENT WARREN,

Respondent,

 / 

ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO FILE BRIEF INSTANTER

On June 29, 2012, the parties entered a stipulation, in which petitioner’s counsel was

given sixty days to file a brief in support of his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus and

respondent would be given sixty days after the filing of the brief to file an answer to the

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. On September 21, 2012, petitioner filed a brief in

support of the amended habeas petition. Petitioner has also filed a Motion to File Brief Instanter. 

There is no indication of purposeful delay on the part of petitioner’s counsel in filing the

brief in support of the amended petition and this Court has the discretion in extending the time to

file pleadings in a habeas case. For those reasons, the Court will grant the Motion To File Brief

Instanter. See e.g. Whitfield v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 2d 758, 761 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

Based upon the foregoing, the Motion to File Brief Instanter [Dkt. # 11] is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 5, 2013

1

2:09-cv-12279-PDB-DAS Doc # 23 Filed 06/05/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 4038
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the parties and/or attorneys of record by electronic means or

U.S. Mail on June 5, 2013.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:09-cv-12279-PDB-DAS Doc # 23 Filed 06/05/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 4039