alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MIED (5/08) Order on Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

1

 Upon a plaintiff’s request, “the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal” or another person appointed by the court; “the

court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or . . . as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3)(emphasis supplied). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 

v. Judge

Magistrate Judge 

Defendant(s).

/

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND/OR REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

The court having considered the application to proceed in forma pauperis:

IT IS ORDERED that the application is:

v GRANTED

v DENIED, for the following reasons:

If denied the plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee by . Failure to pay the filing fee by this

deadline may result in dismissal of the complaint.

SERVICE

The court having considered the request1 of the plaintiff that the court direct service by a United States Marshal. The

court finds the plaintiff proceeds: 

v in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

v as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.

v as neither in forma pauperis nor as a seaman.

BELINDA DENISE JONES

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

09-13426

Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

Mona K. Majzoub

✔

✔

2:09-cv-13426-JAC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16
MIED (5/08) Order on Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the request for service is:

v GRANTED, and the clerk is directed to process the complaint and issue the summons for service by the United

States Marshal.

v DENIED, for the following reasons:

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on this date

by electronic and/or first class mail.

Date: 

Case Manager/Deputy Clerk

✔

s/Mona K. Majzoub

Mona K. Majzoub, U.S. Magistrate Judge

09/04/09 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett

2:09-cv-13426-JAC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 09/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20402-01-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

PAUL JOHN NUGENT,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA AS TO COUNT SEVEN, AND TAKING THE RULE 11

PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on February 25, 2010, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles E.

Binder pursuant to the Defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report [Dkt. # 29] on

February 25, 2010, recommending acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea. Either party may serve

and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination

of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party

objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 29] is ADOPTED.

Case 1:09-cr-20402-TLL-CEB ECF No. 34, PageID.117 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea as to count seven is ACCEPTED,

and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 31] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on March 11, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:09-cr-20402-TLL-CEB ECF No. 34, PageID.118 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2
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 quarterly report of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dean R. Marks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





/s/ Dean R. MarksDean R. Marks

Chief Executive Officer

May 16, 2011








[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon BAGNELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30344. D.C. No. CR-02-00002-DWM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Brandon Bagnell appeals his conviction after a jury found him guilty of being a *645felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Bagnell contends his conviction should be vacated because he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Bagnell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is inappropriate on direct appeal because the record is not sufficiently developed to allow review, and the legal representation was not so inadequate that it clearly denied Bagnell his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. *See United States v. Reyes-Platero,*224 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that record insufficiently developed to review ineffective assistance claim where trial counsel’s motives unclear).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10103
JENARA STEELE; SHANNON STEELE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; REO PROPERTIES CORP., Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CV-603
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D Decem ber 1 2, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 11-10103 Document: 00511692028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2011
Exhibit
32.2





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 Report of
Acquired Sales Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”) I, Gerard M. Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:





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





b.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Gerard M.
Jacobs


Gerard M.
Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)





Dated
August 12, 2008
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1443

KING GRANT

- DAVIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR; SOUTH CAROLINA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 02521

- PMD )

Submitted : September 20, 2018 Decided: October 2, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. King Grant

- Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: King Grant

- Davis appeals the district court’s order denying leave to amend his amended complaint and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment to D efendants in Grant

- Davis’ civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Grant

- Davis v. S.C. Office of the Governor , No. 2:15

- cv - 02521

- PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 201 8) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### STATE v. BAKER

No. 623P87.

Case below: 87 N.C. App. 678.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1988.
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 19
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 20
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 21
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 22
2:09-cv-13564-BAF-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 23
EX-10.36



 Exhibit 10.36 

This is a translation of the original Chinese text. 

January 17, 2014 
 To: Guangzhou Kingsoft Network
Technology Co., Ltd. (the “VIE Entity”) 
 To Whom It May Concern: 

To ensure the cash flow requirements of the VIE entity’s operations are met and/or to set off any loss accrued during such operations, the undersigned,
Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd. (the “WFOE”), is obligated and hereby undertakes to provide unlimited financial support to the VIE Entity, to the extent permissible under the applicable PRC laws and
regulations, whether or not any such operational loss is actually incurred. The form of financial support shall include, but not limited to, extension of cash, entrusted loans and borrowings. WFOE will not request repayment of the loans or
borrowings if the VIE Entity or its shareholders do not have sufficient funds or are unable to repay. 
 The undersigned agrees and acknowledges such
undertaking shall be irrevocable and continuously valid from August 5, 2013 until the earlier of (1) the date on which all of the equity interests of the VIE Entity have been acquired directly or indirectly by WFOE or its designated
representative (individual or legal person); or (2) the date of unilateral termination by WFOE, at its sole and absolution discretion, by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to the VIE Entity of its intention to terminate this
letter. 
 Please confirm receipt of this letter by returning a signed copy of this letter to the undersigned. 

 

			
	Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd.
		
	By/Chop:	 	/s/ Common seal of Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDERICK O. OPIYO, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13609

v.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

MAG. JUDGE CHARLES BINDER 

DEPUTY H. BOEHM,

DEPUTY J. DARLING and

DEPUTY WEDGE,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This prisoner civil rights case was referred to Magistrate Judge Binder for all pretrial

matters. The court previously entered an order dismissing certain defendants and claims.

Now before the court is the motion for summary judgment filed by the three remaining

defendants. Magistrate Judge Binder has issued a report and recommendation concluding

that the court should grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment because plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and, alternatively, because plaintiff’s claims

fail for substantive reasons. No objections to the report and recommendation have been

filed and the time period for filing objections has expired. The court has reviewed the file,

record, and magistrate judge's report and recommendation and accepts the magistrate

judge's recommendation regarding administrative exhaustion and Rule 56(f). Because

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is dispositive of the case, the court

need not rule on the other arguments presented in defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding

administrative exhaustion and Rule 56(f) is adopted and defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is granted based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Dated: September 16, 2010

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 16, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Alan Schaffner, Managing Director of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the six months ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Alan Schaffner


Alan Schaffner, Managing Director


Dated: November 22, 2010
Exhibit 31

 Certification of W.E. Tucker, CEO of Global 1 Investment Holding Corporation.,
  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 302 of the Sarbanes-
                               Oxley Act of 2002.)

I, W.E. Tucker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global 1 Investment
Holdings Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:/s/ W.E. Tucker

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

W.E. Tucker, CEO
February 14, 2008
#### John Henry, Respondent, v. Stanley Hod Elevator Company, Appellant.

Motion denied. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ.
----

|   | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 12, 2010 |   | /s/ Dana C. Gavenda              |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Dana C. Gavenda                       |   |
|                               |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

| Date:  November 12, 2010 |   | /s/ Kevin D. Maroney                            |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Kevin D. Maroney                                     |   |
|                               |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                               |   |                                                 |   |
#### Ex parte Randall Hage JAMAIL.

No. 1127-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 5, 1996.

W. Troy McKinney, J. Gary Trichter, Houston, for appellant.

William Delmore, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, for the state.

*CONCURRING OPINION TO REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

BAIRD, Judge.

My previous concurring opinion in this cause is withdrawn.

I concur in the decision to refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review but I do so because I believe the petition does not comply with the applicable rules of appellate procedure. Tex.RApp. P. 202(d)(9).1

Tex.R.App. P. 202(d)(5) provides that grounds for review shall be stated in short form without argument. Rule 202(d)(6) provides the reasons for review should be in the form of a direct and concise argument, with supporting authorities, amplifying the reasons relied upon for granting review. Rule 200(c) enumerates six reasons for review. *Reasons*for review are *separate and distinct*from *grounds*for review. The instant petition combines the two and, therefore, fails to comply with our rules.2

In *Degrate v. State,*712 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), we stated that compliance with the applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure is required before we will exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. This petition is an example of the many petitions we summarily refuse each week for noncompliance with those Rules. *Salinas v. State,*897 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Tex.Cr.App.1995) (Baird, J., concurring).

With these comments, I concur in the decision to refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

1

. Rule 202(d)(9) provides:

> The Court may strike, order redrawn or summarily refuse any petition for discretionary review that is unnecessarily lengthy or is not prepared in conformity with these rules.

2

. For example, appellant’s first ground for review states:

> The majority of the Court of Appeals erred in not addressing the actual issue raised by Appellant in this case because the majority erroneously concluded that some different issue had been previously raised and decided. Review is proper pursuant to Tex.R.App. P. 200(c)(5) because the justices of the Court of Appeals disagreed upon a material question of law necessaiy to its decision: namely, the issue raised by Appellant as a point of error as a result of their differing interpretations of this court's decisions in *Jamail v. State,*787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), *Hardie v. State,*807 S.W.2d 319, 321-322 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). Review is also proper pursuant to Tex.R.App. P. 200(c)(3) because the Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state law in conflict with prior decisions of this Court in *Jamail v. State,*787 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), *Hardie v. State, 807*S.W.2d 319, 321-322 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), and *Gipson v. State,*844 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).
Exhibit 4.7

 

FORM 51-102F3

 

MATERIAL CHANGE REPORT

 

	
Item 1.
    	
Name   and Address of Company
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Neovasc   Inc. (the “Company”)
    
	
 
    	
13700   Mayfield Place, Suite 2135
    
	
 
    	
Richmond,   BC,
    
	
 
    	
V6V   2E4
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 2.
    	
Date   of Material Change
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
March 26,   2014
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 3.
    	
News   Release
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
A   news release announcing this material change was issued March 26, 2014   and a copy has been filed on SEDAR.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 4.
    	
Summary   of Material Changes
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
On   March 26, 2014, the Company announced that it had closed the   C$25,152,000 bought deal equity financing previously announced on   March 3, 2014.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 5.
    	
5.1   — Full Description of Material Change
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
On   March 26, 2014, the Company announced that it had closed the   C$25,152,000 bought deal equity financing previously announced on   March 3, 2014. The financing was underwritten by Cormark Securities   Inc., which placed 4,192,000 common shares of the Company’s stock at a price   of $6.00 per common share, for gross proceeds to the Company of C$25,152,000.   The Company expects to use the net proceeds of the financing to advance the   development of the TiaraTM and ReducerTM products and for general corporate and   working capital purposes.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
5.2   — Disclosure for Restructuring Transactions
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Not   applicable.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 6.
    	
Reliance   on subsection 7.1(2) of National Instrument 51-102
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Not   applicable.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 7.
    	
Omitted   Information
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Not   applicable.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 8.
    	
Executive   Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
For   further information, please contact Chris Clark, Chief Financial Officer of   the Company, at 604-270-4344.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Item 9.
    	
Date   of Report
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
March 27,   2014.
2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 310 Filed 04/12/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 7940