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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PERFECTING CHURCH, MARVIN

WINANS, and CYNTHIA FLOWERS,

Case No. 09-cv-13493

Plaintiffs, Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

v.

ROYSTER, CARBERRY, GOLDMAN

& ASSOCIATES, INC., et al, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING SERVICE OF 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on 6/23/10 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Plaintiffs Perfecting Church, Marvin Winans and Cynthia Flowers filed a

securities fraud/breach of contract Complaint on September 3, 2009, alleging that

Defendants induced Plaintiffs to invest approximately $503,171.04, then created false

account statements to create the illusion that Plaintiffs’ investments were being properly

managed. Defendants Royster, Carberry, Goldman & Associates, Inc., Martin Royster,

Lloyd Banks and Toine Murphy were served process in the month that followed the
1

 A Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered on December 3, 2009 as to Defendant Royster,

Carberry, Goldman & Associates, Inc. 

2

 Service by mail to Defendant Steel’s last known address is sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P.

5(b)(2)(C). Plaintiffs should be prepared to offer proof of service at the June 29, 2010 hearing

on the Motion for Default Judgment.

initiation of this suit.1 Plaintiffs sought and were granted an extension of time for service

on Defendant Shannon Steel. Plaintiffs were also granted an ex parte motion for alternate

service. The Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant Steel by U.S. mail on

February 4, 2010. Defendant Steel failed to timely file an answer. Upon Plaintiffs’

request, a Clerk’s Entry of Default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) was filed as to

Defendant Steel on March 24, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment

Against Defendants Royster, Carberry, Goldman & Associates, Inc., and Shannon Steel

on June 7, 2010. The Motion is set for hearing in this Court on June 29, 2010. 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2), no service of a written motion is required on a party

who is in default for failing to appear. Nevertheless, given the not insignificant potential

money damages at stake, the Court finds that a copy of the Motion for Default Judgment

should be served on Defandant Steel in an abundance of caution and in the interest of

fairness.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve

Defendant Shannon Steel with a copy of the Motion for Default Judgment by Friday,

June 25, 2010.

2

s/ Gerald Rosen 

Dated: Chief Judge, United States District Court
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18265]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1314-000]


Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company Inc.; Supplemental Notice 
That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket 
Section 204 Authorization

August 1, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company Inc.'s application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that 
such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 21, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#064043544549686a6f686355737676697472466063746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f393a2d3c30111316111a2c0a0f0f100d0b3f191a0d1c51181009">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18265 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  of PHC,  Inc.  on Form S-3 (No.'s  333-2246,  333-41494,  333-76137,
333-117146 and 333-141431) and Form S-8 (No's  333-102402 and 333-123842) of our
report dated September 27, 2007, with respect to our audits of the  consolidated
financial statements of PHC, Inc. as of June 30, 2007 and 2006 and for the years
then ended,  which is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year
then ended June 30, 2007.


We  also  consent  to the  reference  to us as  "Experts"  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3.

/s/ Eisner LLP



New York, New York
October 3, 2007


                                      186
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Gary Spaniak, President and Chief Executive Officer of Classic Costume Company, Inc.,  (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



|                |     |                                                                    
|--------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                |    
|                |     |                                                                    
|August 19, 2009 | By: | /s/  Gary Spaniak                                                  
|                |     | Gary Spaniak                                                       
|                |     | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                |     |
Exhibit 32.1



Chief Executive Officers Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the annual report of PanAmerican Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael Golden, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.







Date: March 16, 2005







/s/MICHAELE. GOLDEN

Michael E. Golden

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In re The MARRIAGE OF Clinton L. WHITTEMORE, III and Ann Meyer Whittemore. Clinton L. WHITTEMORE, III, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Ann Meyer WHITTEMORE, Respondent/Respondent (Two Cases). Clinton L. WHITTEMORE, III, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Ann Meyer WHITTEMORE, Respondent/Appellant.

Nos. 70414, 70467 and 70896.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Justin C. Cordonnier, Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly & Davis, St. Louis, for appellant.

John A Turcotte, Jr., Diekemper, Hammond, Shinners, Turcotte and Larrew, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are taken from the trial court’s judgment on a motion for *298contempt. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOURTHERN DIVISION

DONYELLE WOODS,

 

Petitioner, Case No. 09-11455 

v.

KENNETH MCKEE,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE

CONSIDERATION AND TO EXTEND TIME

Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file his amended petition

for habeas corpus. This case was stayed on August 27, 2009, and Petitioner was

given 28 days to file an amended petition with the court following exhaustion of state

court remedies. On September 30, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court denied

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, thus ending his state court proceedings. 

Petitioner moves to extend the time for filing his amended petition to 60 days

because new law students have been assigned to work on the case. Respondent

does not oppose the motion.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) authorizes the court to extend any deadline for good

cause. For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants the motion. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Immediate Consideration” is

1

2:09-cv-11455-SJM-SDP Doc # 25 Filed 10/25/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 361
granted. [Dkt. # 24]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Extend Time to File

Amended Habeas Petition” is granted. [Dkt. # 23] Petitioner is directed to file his

amended petition no later than November 29, 2013.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 25, 2013

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

this date, October 25, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-11455.WoodsvMcKee.OrderGrantTimeExtension.jac.wpd

2

2:09-cv-11455-SJM-SDP Doc # 25 Filed 10/25/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 362
176 La. 879

#### Mathews WEST et al. v. Mary Ann GOODWIN et al.

No. 31490.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1933.

O. E. Guillory, of Villa Platte, for appellants.

L. Austin Fontenot, of Opelousas, for appel-lees.

BRUNOT, Justice.-

This is a companion case to Mathews West et al. v. Mary Ann Goodwin et al. (La. Sup.) 147 So. 20, decided this day.

For the reasons assigned in that case, the judgment appealed from in this ease is affirmed at appellants’ cost.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-13626

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

HOG BROTHERS RECYCLING, LLC,

DOUGLAS DAUER, FRANK

DENARDO, JR., PATRICIA WINTER,

and CLIFFORD WINTER,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME IN WHICH TO

SERVE DISCOVERY UPON GARNISHEES

Presently before the Court is the report issued on October 29, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Paul

J. Komives pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court grant the plaintiff’s motion

for an extension of time in which to serve discovery upon garnishees. Although the Magistrate

Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the

recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far.

The parties’ failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any further right

to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

Likewise, the failure to object to the Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to

independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court

agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt.

#57] is ADOPTED.

2:09-cv-13626-DML-PJK Doc # 58 Filed 11/19/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1001
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time in which to serve

discovery upon garnishees [dkt. #52] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that if the plaintiff desires to serve written interrogatories on and

to notice the depositions of Frank DeNardo, Clifford Winter, Douglas Dauer, and Patricia Winter,

then it must do so on or before November 29, 2012.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 19, 2012

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 November 19, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-13626-DML-PJK Doc # 58 Filed 11/19/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20394

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

CANDELARIO SERRANO-ALVARADO

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the

parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on September 15, 2010. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath,

confirmed Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant

regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that

Defendant is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made; and (3) that the offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty is

supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of
2

the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence

investigation report.

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the

Court’s consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, Defendant’s plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged

guilty, and the Court impose sentence.

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14

days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may

serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy.” FED.R.CIV.P. 72(B)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985);

Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United

States v Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making

some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party

may have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,
3

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: September 15, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Roy Kranz and Jeffrey Rupp, and served on District Judge Ludington

in the traditional manner.

Date: September 15, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANTHONY J. PHILLIPS, Sr.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. D. M ELO TR

E JOS, C o rre c tiona l Offic e r, individual, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-55113 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-04673-M C S-SHK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ark C
. Sc arsi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , FER NANDEZ, a

n d SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Anthony Phillips a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of De fe n d ant D. M e lo Tre j os in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c ivil rights ac tion



# FIL ED MAR 16 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a lle ging e xc e ssive forc e in viola tion of theEighth Am e n dm e nt. W e re v ie w de novo, 1 and we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t the re wa s no ge nuine disputeof
m ate ria l fa c t tha

t Tre j os did not use e xc e ssive forc e whe n he de ploy e d

a sponge round from

a forty m illim e te r la

unc he r to bre ak up a

fight be twe e n Phillips a

nd
anothe r inm ate . The e vide nc e be fore the distric t c ourt showe d tha t Tre jos did not
a c t m a lic iously

or sa distic a l ly
. Se e Simmons v . Arne tt , 47 F.4th 927, 932–33 & n.1 (9th C ir. 2022); se e also U.S. C onst. a m e nd. VIII; W

h itle y v . Albe rs , 475 U.S. 312, 318–26, 106 S. C t . 1078, 1083–87, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1986). The distric t c ourt a l so c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Phillips faile d

to ide ntify

a viola tion of a “ c le arly e sta blishe d right” tha

t would de fe at Tre

jos’ s de fe nse of qua lifie d im

m unity
. Se e Mulle n ix

v . Luna , 577 U.S. 7, 11–12, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308, 193 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2015) (pe r c uriam ). Phillips’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t Tre jos wa s e stoppe d from

a sse rting a qua lifie d im m unity de fe nse on sum

m ary judgm e n t a fte r a sse rting the de fe nse at the m otion to dismiss sta ge ha s no m e rit. Se e Be hre ns v . Pe lle tie r , 516 U.S. 299, 306, 116 S. C t. 834, 839, 133 L. Ed. 2d 773 (1996). AFFIRM E D.

1 Hughe s v . Rodrigue

z , 31 F.4th 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2022). 2 2
- 5 5 1 1 3

2
EX-4.10



 Exhibit 4.10 

JOINDER AGREEMENT 
 November 22, 2013 

Delhaize Group 
 Square Marie Curie 40 

1070 Brussels 
 Belgium 

Attention: Chief Financial Officer 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to that certain cross-guarantee agreement, dated as of May 21, 2007 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Cross-Guarantee Agreement”), by and among Delhaize Group, a limited liability company (“société anonyme”) organized under the laws of the Kingdom of Belgium
(“Delhaize Group”), Delhaize America, LLC, a limited liability company wholly-owned by Delhaize Group organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (“Delhaize America”), and the other
wholly-owned Subsidiaries of Delhaize Group signatory thereto or that have become a party thereto (collectively with Delhaize Group and Delhaize America, the “Guarantors” and individually, a
“Guarantor”). 
 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 This letter supplements the Cross-Guarantee Agreement and is delivered by the undersigned, Delhaize America
Supply Chain Services, Inc. (the “New Guarantor”), pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. The New Guarantor hereby agrees to be bound as a Guarantor by all of the terms, covenants and conditions set
forth in the Cross-Guarantee Agreement as of November 22, 2013. Without limiting the foregoing, the New Guarantor hereby makes each of the representations and warranties and agrees to each of the covenants applicable to Guarantors contained in
the Cross-Guarantee Agreement. 
 THIS LETTER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the New Guarantor has caused this letter to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized
officer as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	DELHAIZE AMERICA SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ G. Linn Evans
		 	Name: G. Linn Evans
		 	Title: Secretary
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Audra McCLEOD, Appellant.

No. WD 49689.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 5, 1995.

Jarrett A. Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

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

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from conviction of sale of a controlled substance, section 195.211, RSMo 1994, and from sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).