alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Geo. F. DUGGER and C. L. Grindstaff, Appellants, v. John I. COX, Receiver of First National Bank of Elizabethton, Tennessee, Appellee.

No. 7911.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 15, 1938.

Hallie K. Riner and J. Malcolm Shull, both of Elizabethton, Tenn., for appellants.

Joseph A. Caldwell, of Bristol, Tenn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been submitted upon motion to dismiss the appeal, the court being advised now files its written memorandum herein and it is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the appeal be, and the same is, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAFIEL RIGGINS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 09-cv-13144

NICK LUDWICK, HON. AVERN COHN

Respondent.

__________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO HOLD

HABEAS PETITION IN ABEYANCE (Doc. 11)

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Rafiel Riggins, a state

prisoner, challenges his 2006 convictions for assault with intent to murder, firearm

possession by a felon, and felony firearm, third offense, imposed by a Wayne County

Circuit Court jury. In the petition, filed in August of 2009, he raises two claims: (1)

sufficiency of the evidence for the assault conviction; and (2) improper scoring of his

guidelines. Respondent has recently answered the petition and filed the necessary

Rule 5 materials.

Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion to Hold Habeas Petition in Abeyance,” in

which he asks the Court to hold his petition in abeyance so that he may return to state

court to present an additional, and apparently unexhausted, claim. However, he has not

identified the additional claim. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, the motion will be

denied.

2:09-cv-13144-AC-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 02/09/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 677
2

II. Discussion

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court approved a

procedure for holding habeas-corpus actions in abeyance to allow petitioners to return

to the state courts to present unexhausted claims. In Rhines, the Supreme Court

recognized the district court’s discretion to stay a habeas-corpus proceeding pending

prompt exhaustion of state remedies if there is “good cause” for the petitioner’s failure to

exhaust and if petitioner’s unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless.” Rhines, 544

U.S. at 277-78.

Petitioner has not identified the claim that he seeks to exhaust for purposes of

supplementing his habeas petition. Without such information, the Court cannot

determine whether good cause exists for his failure to exhaust the claim nor whether the

claim has colorable merit. As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated that a stay is

warranted.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons state above, Petitioner’s “Motion to Hold Habeas Petition in

Abeyance” is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2011 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13144-AC-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 02/09/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 678
09-13144 Riggins v. Ludwick

M & O Denying Motion to Hold Habeas Petition in Abeyance

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

record on this date, February 9, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-13144-AC-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 02/09/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 679
#### Freddie WYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52475.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 20, 1996.

James C. Cox, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P. J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Wyle’s appeal of the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief is ruled against him as without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

A memorandum of the reason for the decision has been furnished to the parties. The *950decision is -without precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
<page>
			            EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
Aspect L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of
the Partnership, 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 my 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 operations of the Partnership.





By:	  /s/	Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President

Date:		March 9, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Tongji Healthcare Group, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 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 the Company for the quarter ended  March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 19, 2011



/s/ Yunhui YuYunhui Yu

Ptresident and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.2**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. 

Richmond, Virginia 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-51074) and S-3 (No. 333-51078) of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. of our report dated April 8, 2008 except for Note 14 which is as of March 31, 2009, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007, which appear in this Form 10­K. 

/s/    BDO Seidman, LLP

Richmond, Virginia 

March 31, 2009
EXHIBIT 31.4

RULE 13a‐14a/15d‐14(a) CERTIFICATION OF THE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Hung D. Le, the Chief Financial Officer of Trans World Corporation, certify that:

|  | 1. |  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10‐K/A of Trans World Corporation; and |
|--|----|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this Form 10-K/A 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 Form 10-K/A. |
|--|----|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   |                          |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
| Date: April 27, 2018 | By:    | /s/ Hung D. Le                |
|                           |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                           |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhiguang Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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






Dated: May 23, 2011/s/ Zhiguang ZhangBy:
Zhiguang ZhangChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 DENYING BRAVATA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On September 4, 2009, the Bravata defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s August 21, 20009 order that, among other things, denied the Bravata defendants’ requests

to unfreeze the assets and invited the defendants to renew their requests at the hearing on the

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and appointment of a receiver. In their motion for

reconsideration, the Bravata defendants contend that in arriving at its decision, the Court failed to

consider the declaration of John J. Bravata filed on August 12, 2009 in support of the Bravata

defendants’ requests for a carve-out from the asset freeze.

Motions for reconsideration may be granted pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g) when the

moving party shows (1) a “palpable defect,” (2) that misled the court and the parties, and (3) that

correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3). A

“palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Mich. Dep’t

of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citations omitted). Yet

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 62 Filed 09/11/2009 Page 1 of 2
-2-

motions for reconsideration should not be granted when they “merely present the same issues ruled

upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3).

In the declaration cited by the Bravata defendants, John J. Bravata merely affirms that the

factual information contained in the supplemental memorandum in support of the continuing request

by the Bravata defendants for relief from the asset freeze is “true and accurate to the best of [Mr.

Bravata’s] knowledge and belief.” See John J. Bravata Decl. ¶¶ 2-4 [dkt. # 43]. The Court already

has considered the supplemental memorandum. The statements made in Bravata’s declaration are

not sufficient to establish conclusively facts in dispute. Instead, they presents only one version of

the facts, and an evidentiary hearing remains to be necessary to resolve these factual issues.

Therefore, the Bravata defendants have not established a palpable defect warranting reconsideration,

and the Court will deny their motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Bravata defendants’ motion for reconsideration [dkt.

# 56] is DENIED. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 11, 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 September 11, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 62 Filed 09/11/2009 Page 2 of 2
**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 Agent155 Media Corp., formerly Freshwater Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Martinez, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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:

 

(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 position and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: August 15, 2011

/s/ Christopher J. Martinez

Christopher J. Martinez Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) 

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 CAI International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Masaaki (John) Nishibori, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that:




(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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: May 6, 2011


By:
/s/ MASAAKI (JOHN) NISHIBORIMasaaki (John) Nishibori

President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CECELIA HALL,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-12678

 vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

HOME DEPOT, INC., MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.

________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET NO. 10)

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Answers to First Set

of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents filed October 2, 2009. (Docket

no. 10). Plaintiff filed an untimely response (docket no. 13) and failed to file a Joint Statement as

ordered by this Court. (Docket no. 12). Defendant filed a Reply Brief. (Docket no. 14). The

Defendant filed a Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues. (Docket no. 15). The motion has

been referred to the undersigned for decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no. 11). 

The Court dispenses with oral argument on the motion pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e). The matter

is now ready for ruling.

Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action alleging a violation of the Michigan

Elliot-Larsen’s Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2010, et seq., claiming damages for lost remuneration,

past and future, emotional distress, and exemplary damages. (Docket no. 1). The Defendant served

its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on July 8, 2009. (Docket no. 10). Plaintiff

responded to the Requests for Production of Documents on November 13, 2009. (Docket no. 15).

The Defendant shows that the Plaintiff has not served responses or objections to the Defendant’s

1

5:09-cv-12678-JCO-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 11/19/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 67
First Set of Interrogatories which were served on July 8, 2009. (Docket no. 15). The time for

responding has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s

Motion to Compel and order Plaintiff to respond without objections.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel (docket no. 10) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will respond fully and completely without

objections to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories on or before November 23, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for Monday, November 23, 2009

is cancelled.

NOTICE TO PARTIES

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of this

Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: November 19, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Counsel of Record

on this date.

Dated: November 19, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

2

5:09-cv-12678-JCO-MKM Doc # 16 Filed 11/19/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 68
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4088

To provide for the conveyance of certain property from the United States

to Stanislaus County, California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

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

Committee on Science

A BILL

To provide for the conveyance of certain property from the

United States to Stanislaus County, California.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

4 As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment

5 of this Act, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics

6 and Space Administration (in this Act referred to as

7 ‘‘NASA’’) shall convey to Stanislaus County, California,

8 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

9 to the property described in section 2.
2

•HR 4088 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROPERTY DESCRIBED.

2 The property to be conveyed pursuant to section 1

3 is—

4 (1) the approximately 1528 acres of land in

5 Stanislaus County, California, known as the NASA

6 Ames Research Center, Crows Landing Facility (for7 merly known as the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field,

8 Crows Landing);

9 (2) all improvements on the land described in

10 paragraph (1); and

11 (3) any other Federal property that is—

12 (A) under the jurisdiction of NASA;

13 (B) located on the land described in para14 graph (1); and

15 (C) designated by NASA to be transferred

16 to Stanislaus County, California.

17 SEC. 3. TERMS.

18 (a) CONSIDERATION.—The conveyance required by

19 section 1 shall be without consideration other than that

20 required by this section.

21 (b) ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION.—(1) Notwith22 standing any other provision of law, the conveyance re23 quired by section 1 shall not relieve any Federal agency

24 of any responsibility under law for any environmental re25 mediation of soil, groundwater, or surface water.
3

•HR 4088 IH

1 (2) Any remediation of contamination, other than

2 that described in paragraph (1), within or related to struc3 tures or fixtures on the property described in section 2

4 shall be subject to negotiation to the extent permitted by

5 law.

6 (c) RETAINED RIGHT OF USE.—NASA shall retain

7 the right to use for aviation activities, without consider8 ation and on other terms and conditions mutually accept9 able to NASA and Stanislaus County, California, the

10 property described in section 2.

11 (d) RELINQUISHMENT OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDIC12 TION.—NASA shall relinquish, to the State of California,

13 legislative jurisdiction over the property conveyed pursu14 ant to section 1—

15 (1) by filing a notice of relinquishment with the

16 Governor of California, which shall take effect upon

17 acceptance thereof; or

18 (2) in any other manner prescribed by the laws

19 of California.

20 (e) ADDITIONAL TERMS.—The Administrator of

21 NASA may negotiate additional terms to protect the inter22 ests of the United States.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8016

FRED LEWIS WILSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TRACY RAY, Warden; ASSISTANT WARDEN, ROSP; L. COLLINS, 

Sergeant; D. MCCOWAN, Sergeant; TONY ADAMS, I.I.; J. 

BLEVINS, Lieutenant,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00418-gec-mfu)

Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Lewis Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fred Lewis Wilson appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) inmate civil rights 

action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny Wilson’s motion for injunctive 

relief pending appeal and affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Wilson v. Ray, No. 7:09-cv-00418-gec-mfu (W.D. 

Va. Oct. 27, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 23, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00721

- CV

Raymond K. Oukrop, DDS, P.C., Appellant

v.

Ronald Wayne Tatsch, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND G OODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on September 20, 2012. Having

reviewed the record an d the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the cou rt below.