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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MJ ACQUISITIONS, INC., a Michigan

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SMS LIMITED, a Delaware corporation,

and SMS LIMITED, a California

corporation,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-13721

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION TO

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on October 30, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On October 27, 2009, this Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). 

The TRO was entered on short notice and without testimony from witnesses. It was

intended solely to prevent the harm Plaintiff claimed it would suffer at the Specialty

Equipment Market Association’s 2009 SEMA Show scheduled for November 4 through

7, if the TRO was not issued. The TRO was not intended to cause Defendants any

unnecessary harm and, therefore, the Court did not require Plaintiff to post a bond

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Now before the Court is an emergency motion to modify the TRO, filed by

Defendant SMS Limited, a California corporation (“SMS Limited”). SMS Limited seeks

to add a confidentiality provision to the TRO, barring the parties from revealing the

2:09-cv-13721-PJD-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 358
2

existence and the content of the order. Plaintiff opposes SMS Limited’s request

indicating that the TRO, because it has been filed on the Court’s public docket, is neither

confidential nor secret. Plaintiff further indicates that, if SMS Limited violates the TRO,

Plaintiff may need to inform individuals about the TRO (such as SEMA officials). 

Plaintiff indicates, however, that it does not intend to issue a press release or other form

of mass publication regarding issuance of the TRO and that it has communicated this to

SMS Limited’s counsel.

The Court finds that SMS Limited’s requested modification is reasonable. While

the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the modification, it believes those

concerns are eliminated by the language of the modification. Therefore, the TRO issued

on October 27, 2009 shall be modified to provide:

IT IS ORDERED, that the provisions of this order shall not be disclosed by the

parties, their employees, or their agents for any purpose unrelated to the enforcement of

the order, until further order of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Thomas M. Dixon

Matthew W. Heron

Martin H. Karo

2:09-cv-13721-PJD-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 10/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 359
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

SA NTOS VILLAREAL , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA- CR 1 8-0882 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-123571-004 The Honorable Daniel G. Martin , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Daniel Strange Counsel for Respondent

S antos Villareal , Buckeye Petitioner FILED 7-9-2019STATE v. VILLAREAL Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie , Chief Judge Peter B. Swann , and Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Santos Villareal seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is Villareal ’s second petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for pos t- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find t he petitioner h as not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
*

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1224

___________

Kelly D. Warfield, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of South Dakota.

Tracey R. Dollison, Pennington *

County State’s Attorney’s Office, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 12, 2004

Filed: November 17, 2004 

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kelly D. Warfield appeals the district court’s*

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in Warfield’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After carefully reviewing the

record, we conclude the judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district

court. We deny Warfield’s motion to supplement the record and affirm the judgment

of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1773-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated  June 25, 2008, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         July 29, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the President's June 30, 2008, amended declaration authorizing Federal funds for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, at 90 percent Federal funding of total eligible costs under the Public Assistance program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service River Forecast Center has established that the rivers in the State of Missouri, which have experienced historical flooding, fell below flood stage on July 18, 2008. 

                        (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially                               ( print page 46638)                            Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)                    

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-18438 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILBURN KIMBROUGH,

Plaintiff, Case no. 09-13259

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant,

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court, pursuant to 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S. C.

636(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(b)(3), has reviewed Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk’s August

19, 2010 report and recommendation; Plaintiff’s September 9, 2010 objection; Defendant’s

September 23, 2010 response to objection; and having thoroughly reviewed the relevant papers,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED,

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the findings of the Commissioner

are hereby AFFIRMED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: September 28, 2010
2

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

record on this date, September 28, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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, Samuel
H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that:





The
Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2008
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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/
      Samuel H. Lindsey, Jr.Samuel
      H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial OfficerDated:
      November 18, 2008
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 17, 2005

Decided November 22, 2005

Before

 Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

 Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 05-2378

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEITH BENNETT JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois

No. 03-20064-001

Michael P. McCuskey, 

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Keith Bennett Johnson was charged with bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and

wire fraud, id. § 1343. Johnson entered into a written plea agreement that called

for him to plead guilty to the bank-fraud count and waive his right to appeal his

conviction or sentence. The district court sentenced him to 46 months of

imprisonment to be followed with five years of supervised release. Johnson filed a

notice of appeal despite the waiver, but his attorney now seeks to withdraw under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because she is unable to find a

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Johnson was notified of counsel's motion, see Cir. R.

51(b), and has responded. We limit our review of the record only to those potential

issues identified in counsel's facially adequate brief, see United States v. Tabb, 125

F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam), and in Johnson's submissions.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-2378 Page 2

Johnson’s plea agreement includes an unqualified promise to forego

challenging, whether by direct appeal or collateral proceeding, “any and all issues

relating to this plea agreement and conviction and to the sentence . . . on any

ground whatever.” An appeal waiver is enforceable if entered into knowingly and

voluntarily. United States v. Lockwood, 416 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Thus,

Johnson is barred from proceeding with this appeal unless he can overcome his

waiver, and he cannot contest the waiver without challenging the entire plea

agreement. See United States v. Whitlow, 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002). 

Counsel represents that Johnson has no desire to withdraw his guilty plea and, in

the process, give up the benefits he received under the plea agreement. See United

States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2002) (withdrawing guilty plea may

result in losing bargained-for benefits in plea agreement). Accordingly, an attempt

to invalidate the waiver would be frivolous. See United States v. Hare, 269 F.3d

859, 860-61 (7th Cir. 2001). It matters not that Johnson proposes to argue that his

attorney mishandled aspects of his case; the waiver he executed encompasses

claims of ineffective assistance by trial counsel, and since the alleged deficiency is

unrelated to the negotiation of the appeal waiver, the waiver is no less effective in

precluding an argument about counsel’s performance. See Jones v. United States,

167 F.3d 1142, 1145 (7th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the

appeal.
#### Clymer *v.*The Commonwealth.

This is another case like the above upon the Collateral Inherit*190anee Law, and we so entirely approve of the ruling of the learned judge, that we do not deem it necessary to add to his reasoning anything more than we have said above.

The judgment is affirmed.

Read, J., dissented.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00235

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.H., J.H., AND N.R.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- 08

- 88894

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. No costs are assessed against either party, as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay cos ts and appelle e is exempt from all costs

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 8, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff Case No. 09-11335 

 Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

-vSterling C. Bailey, 

 Defendant 

________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE OF PROCESS BY SUBSTITUTED MEANS

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The plaintiff has filed a petition for an order permitting substituted service 

of process and an affidavit by a process server reciting the unsuccessful 

attempts at service of the summons and compliant. The court finds that service 

of process cannot reasonably be made in a manner set forth under Michigan law, 

and that the substitute means requested reasonably are calculated to give the 

defendant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); Mich. Ct. R. 2.105(I)(1). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s petition for order permitting 

substitute service of process [dkt # 3] is GRANTED. 

 It is ORDERED that the plaintiff may serve the defendant, Sterling C. 

Bailey, with the summons and a copy of the complaint by: 

(A) Posting a copy thereof, along with a copy of this petition and order for 

substituted service of process, at the defendant’s residence at: 8794 

Woodlawn, Detroit, Michigan 48213; 

2:09-cv-11335-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/11/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 18
(B) Mailing a copy of the same by certified mail (return receipt requested) 

to the defendant’s residence noted above; and 

(C) Mailing a copy of the same by first class mail to the defendant’s 

residence noted above 

The plaintiff shall file a certificate confirming service as provided herein. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: May 11, 2009 

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

of record on May 11, 2009 ,by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

2:09-cv-11335-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/11/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 19
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 

 

April 3, 2018 

a0326 

Order 

 

Clerk 

April 3, 2018 

155841 & (17) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 155841 

 COA: 336177 

Oakland CC: 11-235798-FC 

MARK WAYNE ARNETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for 

leave to appeal the May 12, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement 

to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
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




I, Wayne A. Doss, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Texas Sweet Crude Oil Corp for the 2nd quarter ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Texas Sweet Crude Oil Corp.





Date:  June 20, 2010/s/ Wayne A DossWayne A DossPresident, C.E.O. and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Jacob Eidt, Jr., Deceased, as a Will of Real and Personal Property. Charles W. Eidt, Appellant. *877Margaret Eidt and John C. Eidt, Two of the Executors, etc., of Jacob Eidt, Jr., Deceased, Respondents.

Decree affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4130

To enforce the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 20, 1996

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

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Economic and

Educational Opportunities, for a period to be subsequently determined by

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To enforce the constitutional right to the free exercise of

religion.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom of Religious

5 Expression Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. FREE EXERCISE RIGHTS PROTECTED.

7 Students in public schools—

8 (1) have the same right to engage in individual

9 or group prayer and religious discussions in or con-
2

•HR 4130 IH

1 nected with school as they do to engage in other

2 comparable activity;

3 (2) may express their beliefs about religion in

4 the form of homework, artwork, and other written

5 and oral assignments free from discrimination based

6 on the religious content of their submissions;

7 (3) have a right to distribute religious literature

8 to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are

9 permitted to distribute other literature that is unre10 lated to school curriculum or activities; and

11 (4) may display or otherwise communicate reli12 gious messages, including on items of clothing, to

13 the same extent they are permitted to display or

14 communicate other messages.

15 SEC. 3. CIVIL ACTION.

16 A person aggrieved by a violation of section 2 may

17 in a civil action obtain appropriate relief. Such an action

18 may be instituted against a governmental entity as well

19 as against any person engaging in the violation.

20 SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HOT21 LINE.

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall estab23 lish, maintain, and publicize a toll-free number to provide

24 timely and accurate information and respond to questions

25 regarding the rights protected by this Act.
3

•HR 4130 IH

1 (b) OFFSET.—Notwithstanding any other provision

2 of law, funds available under section 458 of the Higher

3 Education Act shall be reduced by $5,000,000 for fiscal

4 year 1997.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

L. TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. PENTRICH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-13246

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JANUARY 13,

2015 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [76] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS [78]

Currently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s January 13, 2015 report and

recommendation. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate judge's

conclusion that prison hearing officials are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. (Plf.'s Obj.

at 1). Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to timely file his objection, the Court finds it to be

without merit in any case. See Evans v. Eaton, 09-11856, 2009 WL 1606492, at *2 (E.D.

Mich. June 4, 2009) ("[a]dditionally, prison hearings investigators or officers in Michigan are

entitled to absolute judicial immunity from liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit challenging

their actions in conducting an administrative hearing." (citing Shelly v. Johnson, 849 F.2d

228, 230 (6th Cir.1988)). The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [66] is DENIED,

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [70] is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN

2:09-cv-13246-NGE-SDD Doc # 79 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1536
PART, and Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation are

DENIED. [78]

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: February 5, 2015

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

on February 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2

2:09-cv-13246-NGE-SDD Doc # 79 Filed 02/05/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1537