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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20403-04 

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

MICHAEL CHARLES TRAYLOR, JR.,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

This case was referred to the undersigned m agistrate 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 and his counsel appeared before m e on June 29, 2010. In open

court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirme d 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 suppor ted by an independent basis in fact

containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation

of a presentence investigation report.
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

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

consideration of the plea agreem ent pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Crim inal

Procedure, Defendant’s plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged guilty and the Court im pose

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 recom mended disposition, a party m ay 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, 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: June 30, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge
3

CERTIFICATION

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

electronically served on Shane Waller and Amy Grace Gierhart, and served on U.S. District

Judge Thomas Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: June 30, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene McINTYRE, Appellant. Eugene McINTYRE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 67383, 69612.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Feb. 11, 1997.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jacqueline K. Hamra, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant-appellant appeals after sentencing on charge of robbery first degree and two charges of felony stealing. He also appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. We affirm the conviction, Rule 30.25(b), and denial of Rule 29.15 relief, Rule 84.16(b).
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
THADDEUS GABARA, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 2333

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:19

- cv

- 09890

- DLC, Senior Judge Denise Cote.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T IMOTHY G ILMAN
, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by B INNI N. S HAH

.

E RIC S HUMSKY
, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appel lee. Also represented by A BIGAIL C OLELLA , New York, NY ; E RIN M ARIE B OYD L EACH , Irvine, CA.

______________________ Case: 20-2333 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2021T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE
, Chief Judge

, R EYNA and
H UGHES
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 8 , 2021 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-2333 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2021
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 414

To authorize issuance of a certificate of documentation with appropriate

endorsement for the vessel REEL TOY.

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 REEL TOY.

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

3 SECTION 1. Notwithstanding section 27 of the Mer4 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act

5 of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and sections

6 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code,

7 as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the

8 Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of doc-
2

•HR 414 IH

1 umentation with appropriate endorsement for the vessel

2 REEL TOY, United States official number 698383.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4279

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to determine the feasibility of

placing bar codes on passenger motor vehicles to facilitate the tracing

of stolen vehicles, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to determine the

feasibility of placing bar codes on passenger motor vehicles to facilitate the tracing of stolen vehicles, and for

other purposes.

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 ‘‘Auto Theft Deterrent

5 Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. USE OF BAR CODES TO TRACE STOLEN VEHICLES.

7 (a) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—
2

•HR 4279 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transpor2 tation shall conduct a study to determine the fea3 sibility and advisability of prescribing standards for

4 the placement of bar codes on passenger motor vehi5 cles and the placement of devices for reading such

6 bar codes at toll gates on roads, bridges, and tunnels

7 for the purpose of facilitating the tracing of stolen

8 vehicles, including stolen vehicles that are aban9 doned.

10 (2) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall complete

11 the study not later than 6 months after the date of

12 the enactment of this Act.

13 (b) STANDARDS.—Based on the results of the study

14 conducted under subsection (a), and not before the date

15 that is 18 months after the date of the enactment of this

16 Act, the Secretary is authorized to prescribe by regulation

17 standards for the placement of bar codes on passenger

18 motor vehicle equipment manufactured in, or imported

19 into, the United States. Such standards shall not apply

20 to a passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle

21 equipment—

22 (1) intended only for export;
3

•HR 4279 IH

1 (2) labeled for export on the vehicle or equip2 ment and the outside of any container of the vehicle

3 or equipment; and

4 (3) exported.

Æ
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3263

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Oladipo Olusegun Smith, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 11, 2000 Filed: January 20, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Oladipo Olusegun Smith appeals his drug-related convictions. Smith contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Contrary to Smith's view, the recordcontains substantial evidence on which a jury could have found Smith guilty of all charges. We also conclude that an extended discussion would serve no useful purpose in this fact-intensive case. Having found Smith's contention to be without merit, we affirm his convictions. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Rod A. Shipman, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CPC of America,
Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

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

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this reported my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the period
covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

         5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit
committee of company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
over financial reporting.



March 31, 2005                       /s/  Rod A. Shipman
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                     Rod A. Shipman, Chief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R A S JA H M IK E S M A T T A , a. k. a. R as Y ah M i kes M att a, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 30363 D . C. N o . 1 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 1 0 - RFC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na R i c ha r d F . C e bul l , C hi e f J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R as Ja h M i kes M att a app ea l s f rom the 96 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n to b e in g af e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 1) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a n d w e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 21 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30363 2 M a tt ac ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi m a n a dj us tm e ntf or a c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 o n th e b a s is o f h is c o n d u c t in j ai l betw ee n the t i m e of hi s pl eaand h i s s ent enci ng . T he di stri ctcourtw as perm i tt ed t o con si der s uch con du ctand d i d n otcl ea rl y e rri n d et erm i ni ng that M a ttaw a s n o t e n title d to a n a d ju s tm e n t. See U

n i ted S ta tes v. M

a ra , 523 F . 3d 1036, 1038- 39 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( uphol di ng de ni a l of a n a dj us tm e ntunde rs e c t i on 3E 1. 1 o n the basi s of aj ai l ho use f i gh tpend i ng se nt enci ng and o bservi ng that

“ po st -off ense cond uctca n shed si gn i fi ca ntl i gh ton the genu i neness of a d e f e n d a n t’s c la im e d r e m o r s e ” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e 9 6 - m o n th se nt ence atthe up per e nd of the advi soryS ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange w as s ubs t a nt i ve l y r e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s a nd th e to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 993 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOYCE MICSAK-TOLBERT,

Petitioner, Case No. 09-13432

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.

MILLICENT WARREN, 

Respondent.

 /

JUDGMENT

Petitioner Joyce Micsak-Tolbert filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In an Opinion and Order issued on this date, the Court

denied Petitioner’s request for habeas relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Petitioner’s application

for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: July 19, 2010

Copies To:

Joyce Micsak-Tolbert, #161000 

Huron Valley Complex-Women’s

3201 Bemis Road

Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Laura A. Cook, A.A.G.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                        ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                AVRO ENERGY INC.
            FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2011
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donald Fitzgerald, am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
Officer of Avro Energy Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the three month period ended June 30, 2011 and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 16, 2011             By: /s/ Donald Fitzgerald
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Donald Fitzgerald
                                      Chief Executive Officer, President, acting
                                      Chief Financial Officer, acting Principal
                                      Accounting Officer and Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SAMUEL L. RIDDLE, JR. (D-2), and MARY

WATERS (D-3),

Defendant(s).

__________________________________ /

CASE NUMBER: 09-20295

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

COURT DETERMINATION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

SAM RIDDLES’ MOTION FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO KASTIGAR

 V. UNITED STATES AND MOTION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

Pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(3)(B), the Court has reviewed Defendant Sam

Riddle’s Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Kastigar v. United States and Motion to Continue

Sentencing (Doc. No. 107), and his Sentencing Memorandum (Doc. No. 109), which

contain objections to the Presentence Investigation Report. The Court also has reviewed

the Government’s Response to Defendant Riddle’s Motion for Kastigar Hearing and to

Continue Sentencing (Doc. No. 108) and its Sentencing Memorandum (Doc. No. 106). In

accordance with Rule 32(i)(3)(B), the Court has determined “that a ruling on the objections

is unnecessary” because it “will not affect sentencing.”

Accordingly, Riddle’s motion is DENIED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

U.S. District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were mailed and/or electronically filed to counsel of record on

this date.

s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

Case Manager
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tongji Healthcare Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Yun-hui Yu, the President
and Chief Executive Officer and Wei-dong Huang, the Principal Financial 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 to the best of their
knowledge:

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

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


                                          TONGJI HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC.


August 11, 2007                            /s/ Yun-hui Yu
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Yun-hui Yu, President and Chief
                                          Executive Officer


August 11, 2007                           /s/ Wei-dong Huang
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Wei-dong  Huang,  Principal  Financial
                                          Officer
Case 2:09-cv-12303-PJD-PJK   Document 49    Filed 11/16/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:09-cv-12303-PJD-PJK   Document 49    Filed 11/16/10   Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17142]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Undergraduate Education; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Undergraduate Education.
    Dates and Times: July 26, 1996; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., July 27, 
1996; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: The Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 
22202.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Herbert Levitan, Section Head, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 
Telephone: (703) 306-1666.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate unsolicited proposals submitted 
to the Institution Reform of Undergraduate Education Panel Meeting.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b. (c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: July 1, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-17142 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Solutions Mechanical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery Thompson, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Jeffery Thompson Jeffery Thompson Title: President and Chief Financial Officer   August 14, 2009    1
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 427

To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal provisions establishing

a national maximum speed limit.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mr. COMBEST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to repeal provisions

establishing a national maximum speed limit.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT

4 COMPLIANCE PROGRAM.

5 Sections 141(a) and 154 of title 23, United States

6 Code, are repealed.

Æ