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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20191

LARRY MELL McCREARY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PRIOR CONVICTIONS

Defendant Larry McCreary has filed the above-captioned motion but has failed to

indicate whether or not the contemplated relief would be agreed to by the Government. 

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(a) states as follows:

(1) The movant must ascertain whether the contemplated motion . . . will

be opposed. If the movant obtains concurrence, the parties may make the

subject matter of the contemplated motion or request a matter of record by

stipulated order.

(2) If concurrence is not obtained, the motion or request must state:

(A) there was a conference between the attorneys or

unrepresented parties in which the movant explained the

nature of the motion or request and its legal basis and

requested but did not obtain concurrence in the relief sought;

or

(B) despite reasonable efforts specified in the motion or

request, the movant was unable to conduct a conference.

(3) The court may tax costs for unreasonable withholding of consent.

Rule 7.1 plainly requires that the movant make clear that it has conducted the

required pre-filing conference in which the nature of the contemplated motion was

explained or, in the alternative, what unsuccessful efforts were made to engage in such

a conference. 

2:09-cr-20191-RHC-RSW Doc # 33 Filed 11/19/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 154
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20191.MCCREARY.NoConcurrence.npk.wpd

2

No exception is made for criminal cases. See E.D. Mich. LR 12.1(a). If the

Government were to agree, the motion would be mooted. The court discourages motion

practice that may be unnecessary and wasteful of court and attorney time. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s “Motion to Exclude Prior Convictions” [Dkt.

# 28] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 19, 2009

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

on this date, November 19, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cr-20191-RHC-RSW Doc # 33 Filed 11/19/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 155
#### Herman BASS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 69704.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 17, 1996.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-20272

ORDER CONFIRMING DEFENDANT’S CONTINUED PRO SE STATUS AND

RESCHEDULING DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING

On November 17, 2011, the court held a hearing to determine whether

Defendant still intended to proceed pro se under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806

(1975), during the sentencing phase of the above-captioned matter. After ample time to

consult with his standby counsel, Margaret Raben, Defendant confirmed his desire to

continue to represent himself pursuant to his Sixth Amendment rights as articulated in

Faretta. During the hearing, the court observed, and Defendant and Ms. Raben stated,

that Defendant was not suffering from any deficits in his comprehension or competence. 

Thus, the court accepted Defendant’s confirmation of his desire to continue to represent

himself, but indicated that Ms. Raben would maintain her position as Defendant’s

standby counsel. The court further informed the parties that the schedule for objections,

motions, and trial sentencing memoranda previously established in its August 17, 2011

order would remain in place. Defendant’s sentencing, however, will be rescheduled. 

Accordingly,

2:09-cr-20272-RHC-VMM Doc # 139 Filed 11/21/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3774
2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s sentencing hearing is RESCHEDULED for

February 9, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. and as stated on the record, Defendant continues to

proceed pro se.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 21, 2011

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

on this date, November 21, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20272.SHARRAK.Faretta.Hearing.Amend.Sentence.Schedule.jrc.wpd

2:09-cr-20272-RHC-VMM Doc # 139 Filed 11/21/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3775
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

         Schedule of Documents Substantially Similar to Exhibit 10.32

         1.       Loan Agreement between the City of Florence, Kentucky and
                  Jameson Inns, Inc. dated as of December 1, 1999, relating to
                  the issuance of $2,520,000 of Adjustable Rate Economic
                  Development Revenue Refunding Bonds; Trust Indenture; Escrow
                  Deposit Agreement; Irrevocable Letter of Credit; Reimbursement
                  Agreement; Mortgage; Assignment of Rents and Security
                  Agreement; Assignment of Leases and Rents; Assignment and
                  Subordination of Master Lease; Environmental Indemnity
                  Agreement; Agreement with respect to Pledged Bonds; Bond
                  Purchase Agreement; Remarketing Agreement

         2.       Loan Agreement between the City of Terre Haute, Indiana and
                  Jameson Inns, Inc. dated as of December 1, 1999, relating to
                  the issuance of $3,740,000 of Adjustable Rate Economic
                  Development Refunding Bonds; Trust Indenture; Escrow Deposit
                  Agreement; Irrevocable Letter of Credit; Reimbursement
                  Agreement; Mortgage; Assignment of Rents and Security
                  Agreement Assignment of Leases and Rents; Assignment and
                  Subordination of Master Lease; Environmental Indemnity
                  Agreement; Agreement with respect to Pledged Bonds; Bond
                  Purchase Agreement; Remarketing Agreement

         3.       Loan Agreement between County of Jefferson, Kentucky and
                  Jameson Inns, Inc. dated as of December 1, 1999, relating to
                  the issuance of $2,550,000 of Adjustable Rate Economic
                  Development Refunding Bonds; Trust Indenture; Escrow Deposit
                  Agreement; Irrevocable Letter of Credit; Reimbursement
                  Agreement; Mortgage; Assignment of Rents and Security
                  Agreement; Assignment of Leases and Rents; Assignment and
                  Subordination of Master Lease; Environmental Indemnity
                  Agreement; Agreement with respect to Pledged Bonds; Bond
                  Purchase Agreement; Remarketing Agreement

                                       1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Case No. 09-12950

Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA,

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK’S MOTION TO INTERVENE

AND DENYING IN PART THE BRAVATA DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION

FOR ORDER TO DIRECT THE RECEIVER TO MAINTAIN LIFE INSURANCE OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP

On November 23, 2009, the Court held a hearing on several motions pending in this case,

including Huntington National Bank’s motion to intervene and the Bravata defendants’ emergency

motion for an order directing the Receiver to maintain premium payments on an insurance policy

on the life of Joanne Bravata or, in the alternative, to transfer ownership of the policy to John J.

Bravata. The Court granted the motion by Huntington National Bank and denied in part the Bravata

defendants’ motion for the reasons stated on the record. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Huntington National Bank’s motion to intervene [dkt.

# 91] is GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record.

It is further ORDERED that the Bravata defendants’ emergency motion for order to direct

the Receiver to maintain the existing insurance policy on the life of Joanne Bravata or, in the

alternative, to transfer ownership of the policy to John J. Bravata [dkt. # 144] is DENIED in part.

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 158 Filed 12/01/2009 Page 1 of 2
-2-

The emergency payment of the premium, which was due by November 15, 2009, is AUTHORIZED

nunc pro tunc. The Bravata defendants’ request to assign the insurance policy on the life of Joanne

Bravata to John J. Bravata is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons stated on the record. 

It is further ORDERED that the Receiver is directed to obtain all pertinent records

pertaining to the insurance on the life of Joanne Bravata from the Lincoln National Life Insurance

Company’s custodian of records, and the defendants must cooperate in furnishing such records.

It is further ORDERED that the defendants are restrained from changing the name of the

beneficiary of the Lincoln National Life Insurance policy on Joanne Bravata’s life, or otherwise

cancelling, transferring, encumbering, or alienating the insurance policy.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 1, 2009

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 December 1, 2009.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 158 Filed 12/01/2009 Page 2 of 2
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16963]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Boraflex Degradation in Spent Fuel Pool Storage Racks; Issued

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Generic 
Letter 96-04 to notify all licensees of nuclear power reactors about 
problems that have been encountered with using Boraflex in spent fuel 
storage racks for the nonproductive absorption of neutrons, and for 
licensees that use Boraflex, to request implementation of certain 
actions and require the submittal of a written response. This generic 
letter is available in the NRC Public Document Room under accession 
number 9606240132.

DATES: The generic letter was issued on June 26, 1996.

ADDRESSEES: Not applicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurence I. Kopp at (301) 415-2879.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information that is being requested will 
enable the NRC staff to determine whether licensees are complying with 
the current licensing basis for the facility with respect to GDC 62 for 
the prevention of criticality in fuel storage and handling, and 5-
percent subcriticality margins that are either contained in the 
technical specifications, or committed to in the updated FSARs, of 
plants containing Boraflex in the spent fuel storage racks. The staff 
is not establishing a new position for such compliance in this generic 
letter.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elinor G. Adensam,
Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-16963 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James BAILEY, Appellant. James BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69615.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Bailey (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County after a jury found him guilty of one count of driving while intoxicated, RSMo § 577.010 (1994). Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal files and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. Likewise, we find the decision of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential pur*668pose, we affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
ex-10.13

 EXHIBIT 10.13
 

 KEY LINK ASSETS CORP.
 NOTE PAYABLE
 $5,290
 

 

 

 February 19, 2014
 Chicago, Illinois
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Key Link Assets Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to the order of Shawn Clark, together with any successors or assigns (collectively, the "Holder"), the principal sum of Five-Thousand Two-Hundred and Ninety Dollars (US $5,290), of which $70 was lent to the Company in November 2013 and $5,220 was lent to the Company in February 2014. The Note is non-interest bearing and bears no collateral.
 

 The Note will be paid in full on June 30, 2015. The Company may redeem the Notes in part, or in full, prior to the due date of the Note.
 

 Payments of principal shall be made at the place that Holder from time to time shall direct in writing, or, in the absence of direction, at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
 

 Upon a default by the undersigned to make any payment due hereunder, and continuing for five (5) calendar days after notice has been given to the undersigned, and at the option of the Holder, all of the unpaid indebtedness evidenced by this Note shall become immediately due and payable and shall accrue interest at the highest rate of interest then permitted by law.
 

 This Note is submitted by the undersigned to the Holder in Chicago, Illinois and shall be deemed to have been made thereat. This Note shall be governed and controlled by the laws of the State of Illinois as to interpretation, enforcement, validity, construction, effect, choice of law, and in all other respects.
 

 To induce the Holder to accept this Note, the undersigned irrevocably agrees that, subject to the Holder's sole and absolute election, all actions and proceedings in any way, manner or respect arising out of or from or related to this Note shall be litigated in courts having situs within the County of Racine, State of Wisconsin, the undersigned hereby covenants and submits to the jurisdiction of any local, state or federal court located within said county and state.
 

 Any notice, designation, demand, consent or request required herein to be given or to be served upon the undersigned by the Holder shall be deemed to have been given or served upon mailing, if addressed to the undersigned at 216 South Jefferson Street, Suite LL, Chicago, Illinois 60661, or upon actual receipt by the undersigned.
  
 In the event of default hereunder, the undersigned agrees to pay all expenses, including, without limitation, attorney fees, incurred by the Holder in endeavoring to enforce the rights of Holder hereunder.
 

 Key Link Assets Corp.
 

 

 By: /s/ Shawn Clark
       Shawn Clark, Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER KAGEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAY LAURENCE RAFTERY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-17351 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05809-VC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Peter Kagel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel 

v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUL 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-17351 

The district court properly dismissed Kagel’s action for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “de facto 

appeal” of a prior state court decision and Kagel raised claims that were 

“inextricably intertwined” with that state court decision. See id. at 1163-65 

(discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 

772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims, as well as requests for damages, 

are “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions where federal adjudication 

“would impermissibly undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Kagel’s requests that this court overturn the district court’s decision under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and remand the case to the Superior Court 

of San Francisco, set forth in the opening brief, are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
#### George A. ROBINSON IV, individually, Charter National Bank, Houston, Henry J.N. Taub II, and Anthony J.A. Bryan, trustees, and George A. Robinson IV v. Helen B. WILS, attorney ad litem.

No. 97-0026.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1997.

Appeal from Probate Court, Harris County; Mike Wood, Judge.

Prior report: Tex.App., 934 S.W.2d 774.

The joint motion pursuant to settlement agreement is granted. The applications for writ of error are granted without reference to the merits and the judgment of the courts below are vacated without reference to the merits. The cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.

The motion for extension of time to file respondent’s brief is overruled as moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Annual
SEC Report Financial Summary and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000914539
<NAME> ROTARY POWER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          53,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  725,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    674,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,455,011
<PP&E>                                         759,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,214,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,115,303
<BONDS>                                      4,412,885
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,250
<COMMON>                                        62,129
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,907,749)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,214,127
<SALES>                                         65,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,607
<CGS>                                          629,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  911,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (59,798)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             687,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (628,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,095,401
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (378,326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4164 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4164

 To provide for the extension of certain authority for the Marshal of 
            the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1996

   Mr. Hyde introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the extension of certain authority for the Marshal of 
            the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first sentence 
of section 9(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the policing 
of the building and grounds of the Supreme Court of the United 
States'', approved August 18, 1949 (40 U.S.C. 13n(c)) is amended by 
striking ``1996'' and inserting ``2000''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 14.2

Form of  Code of Ethical Conduct for Financial Managers

In
my role as a finance manager of Samsonite Corporation and/or its direct and indirect subsidiaries,

I
recognize that financial managers hold an important and elevated role in corporate governance. I am uniquely capable and empowered to ensure that stakeholders' interests are appropriately balanced,
protected and preserved. Accordingly, this Code provides principles to which financial managers are expected to adhere and advocate. The Code embodies rules regarding individual and peer
responsibilities, as well as responsibilities to the company, the public and other stakeholders.

I
certify to you that I adhere to and advocate the following principles and responsibilities governing my professional and ethical conduct.

To
the best of my knowledge and ability:

|(Signature) |  | (Date)
|----------- |  | ------

---



QuickLinks