alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 417

For the relief of Charmaine Bieda.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. KANJORSKI (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Charmaine Bieda.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to

6 Charmaine Beida of Nanticoke, Pennsylvania, the sum of

7 $10,000,000. The payment required by this section shall

8 be in full satisfaction of all claims that Charmaine Bieda

9 may have against the United States relating to the murder

10 of her daughter, Charlene Michelle Bieda Moore, by Bruce

11 Moore, the husband of Charlene Moore, on December 19,

12 1984, while Charlene and Bruce Moore were serving in
2

•HR 417 IH

1 the United States Army and after Charlene Moore had

2 requested that the Army protect her from Bruce Moore

3 and had informed their superiors that he was abusing her.

4 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

5 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per6 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to

7 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren8 dered in connection with the payment. Any person who

9 violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and

10 shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title

11 18, United States Code.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40009 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EZEQUIEL CABRERA-CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-03-CR-1381-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ezequiel CabreraCastillo concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 3 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM Document 27-9 Filed 09/21/10 Page 14 of 14
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CIVIL CASE NO. 09-13594

ex rel. KEITH JOHNSON, HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 Plaintiffs, 

vs.

 

MARK DOBRONSKI and 

SUSAN DOBRONSKI, 

Defendants.

____________________________________________/

ORDER

The United States having consented pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730(b)(1) to the relator’s

voluntary dismissal of this action, the Court rules as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that, 

1. The action is hereby dismissed without prejudice as to the United States; 

2. The complaint shall be unsealed; with all other contents of the Court’s file prior to

the Government’s Notice to Decline Intervention shall remain under seal and not be made

public.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: March 9, 2010

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

March 9, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marilyn Orem 
2

Case Manager
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131084 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, as Subrogee of ROBERT WELLS, JR., Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 131084 

 COA: 257275 

Oakland CC: 2004-056548-CZ 

NORTH POINTE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
179 La. 291

#### SUCCESSION OF ILLG.

No. 32757.

Supreme Court of Louisiana,

March 26, 1934.

Harold J. Rayl, of New Orleans, for relator.

Noah Lord, of New Orleans, for Mildred Neil Illg.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a proceeding by certiorari to set aside an order of a judge of the civil district court dismissing a suspensive appeal from a judgment which he had rendered, and from which he had granted the appeal, returnable to this court. The complaint is that the case was taken out of the jurisdiction of the civil district court, and was brought into the jurisdiction of this court, by the filing of the appeal bond in compliance with the order of appeal. The respondents contend that the judgment which was appealed from was of that class of judgments from which there is no right to a suspensive appeal; and they cite decisions which they say support the contention. The relator, on the other hand, cites decisions tending to sustain his right to a suspensive appeal. The question, however, as to whether the relator is entitled to the appeal, is the very question which he contends was not within the jurisdiction of the judge who decided it, but was within the jurisdiction of this court, after the appeal bond was filed. The only question before us now is whether the judge who rendered the judgment appealed from had jurisdiction to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed, after the appellant had filed his appeal bond in compliance with the order of appeal. On that question we are of the opinion that the complaint of the appellant, the relator, is well founded. After an appellant has filed his appeal bond, in compliance with the order of appeal, the judge who granted the appeal has not jurisdiction to consider a motion to dismiss the appeal, except for a cause relating to the validity or sufficiency of the appeal bond, or the solvency of the surety on the bond. A motion to dismiss the appeal for any other cause belongs in the court to which the appeal has been taken. State ex rel. Johnson v. Judge of Fifth District Court, 21 La. Ann. 113; State ex rel. Canal and Claiborne Streets Railroad Co. v. Judge of Civil District Court, 39 La. Ann. 774, 2 So. 390; State v. Cobb, 134 La. 207, 63 So. 877.

The reason for which the judge dismissed the appeal in this case did not have reference to the validity or sufficiency of the appeal bond, or the solvency of the surety on the bond. The judge’s idea was to avoid what he deemed to be an injustice, and was, of course, very laudable; but we are compelled to hold that the motion to dismisse the appeal should have been filed in this court.

The order complained of, dismissing the relator’s appeal, is set aside, with reservation of the right of the appellees to renew their motion in this court to dismiss the appeal. They are to pay the costs of this proceeding.

ST. PAUL, J., absent.
1

Defendant’s direct appeal has already concluded.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Criminal Case No. 09-20215

Jose Castro-Ramirez, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFERMENT OF PAYMENT 

On August 18, 2012, Defendant Jose Castro-Ramirez (“Defendant”) was sentenced to

168 months imprisonment. The Court also ordered Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of

$9,491,688.75, and pay an assessment of $1,300.00. (See Docket Entry No. 368). The Court

ordered that, while in custody, the defendant shall participate in the Inmate Financial

Responsibility Program.

On November 5, 2012, Defendant filed a pro se “Motion for Deferment of Payment”

(Docket Entry No. 416), wherein he states that he has been making monthly payments of $75.00. 

Defendant’s motion asserts that he “receives very little money from outside” – without

specifying the amounts he actually receives – and that he has expenses for copies, phone calls,

and other unspecified legal expenses “connected with his appeal.”1

 Defendant’s motion asks this

Court to exercise its discretion and allow him to defer further payments of his restitution until he

Case 2:09-cr-20215-SFC-MKM ECF No. 419, PageID.4273 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 2
2

has completed his term of incarceration. Alternatively, he asks the Court to defer payments until

he files, and the Court rules upon, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The Government filed a brief opposing the motion. The Government asserts that

Defendant is required to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons before

asking this Court to modify any payment plan under the Inmate Financial Responsibility

Program, and that Defendant has not shown that he has done so.

The Court shall deny the motion. It does not appear that Defendant has exhausted

administrative remedies available to him. Moreover, even if this Court has the discretion to

order the requested relief before Defendant exhausts available administrative remedies, the Court

would decline to do so in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Deferment of Payment is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2012 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox 

U. S. District Court Judge

I hereby certify that on December 13, 2012, the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record by electronic means and upon Jose Castro-Ramirez by First Class Mail at the address

below:

Jose Castro-Ramirez

Reg No. 30835-039 / Unit 5703

Federal Correctional Institution

P. O. Box 2000

Fort Dix, NJ 08640

Dated: December 13, 2012 S/ J. McCoy 

Case Manager

Case 2:09-cr-20215-SFC-MKM ECF No. 419, PageID.4274 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R. Howell IV,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

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.



|                      |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: April 29, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV     
|                      |  |     |  | Charles R. Howell IV         
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Richard Dale PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52687.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 14, 1997.

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

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

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and HANNA and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing following his plea to robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1994, and sentence of twentyfive years imprisonment. Affirmed. Rule 24.035(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 413 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 413

     To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with 
 appropriate endorsement for the vessel SMALLEY 6808 Amphibious Dredge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

   Mr. Goss introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with 
 appropriate endorsement for the vessel SMALLEY 6808 Amphibious Dredge.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 
289), and sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States 
Code, as applicable on the date of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for the vessel SMALLEY 6808 Amphibious Dredge, 
Florida, FL1855FF.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17980]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Utah Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the regulations 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the 
Utah Advisory Committee will convene at 6 p.m. and adjourn at 8 p.m. 
(MST) on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at the Hilton City Center, 255 
South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.
    The purpose of the meeting is for the committee to discuss recent 
Commission and regional activities, discuss current civil rights issues 
in the state as well as issues raised during the forum on civil rights 
issues affecting American Indians in Utah (held Dec. 2006), and plan 
future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Malee V. Craft, Director of the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, (303) 866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, July 31, 2008.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E8-17980 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR BRIDGES,

Petitioner, 

v.

BLAINE LAFLER, 

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 1:09-cv-11665

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Habeas petitioner Arthur Bridges challenges his convictions for one count of conspiracy to

deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.741(2)(a)(iv), and one count of possession with intent to

deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157a. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Bridges has filed

a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

Bridges has not suggested any particular reason for seeking counsel, and he has no absolute

right to be represented on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of

Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992)

(citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case

is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.” Childs v.

Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted). A habeas petitioner

may obtain representation at any stage of the case “[w]henever the United States magistrate or the

court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court

determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel here. 

1:09-cv-11665-TLL-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 12/16/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1211
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Bridges’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No.

27, is DENIED. 

Dated: December 16, 2013 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

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, and upon Arthur Bridges # 154318, 10274 Boyer Rd,

Carson City, MI 48811 by first class U.S. mail on December 16, 2013.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

2

1:09-cv-11665-TLL-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 12/16/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1212
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20421-01

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

JUAN LUIS MONTOYA-PEGO,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On December 22, 2009, the 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. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on December 22, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

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

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

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

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:09-cr-20421-TLL-CEB Doc # 29 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 66
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, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 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); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). 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. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. 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: December 23, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

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

electronically served on Roy Kranz and C. Michael Gorte, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: December 23, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:09-cr-20421-TLL-CEB Doc # 29 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 67
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0137

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SHELBY BRYAN RAGNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 30, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2021

10/26/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0137