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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Darryl Von Johnson,

Petitioner, Case No. 09-11688

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Raymond Booker,

Respondent.

_________________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including Petitioner’s Objections if any, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is further ordered that Petitioner’s application

for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: October 5, 2011

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

October 5, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11688-NGE-PJK Doc # 17 Filed 10/05/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 726
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4012 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4012

To waive temporarily the Medicare enrollment composition rules for The 
                             Wellness Plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1996

   Mr. Upton (for himself, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Camp, Mr. Levin, and Mr. 
   Conyers) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, 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 waive temporarily the Medicare enrollment composition rules for The 
                             Wellness Plan.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF MEDICARE ENROLLMENT COMPOSITION RULES FOR THE 
              WELLNESS PLAN.

    The requirements of section 1876(f)(1) of the Social Security Act 
are waived with respect to Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. (doing 
business as The Wellness Plan) for contract periods through December 
31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
#### The REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TEXAS and Thomas W. Pauken, State Chairman, and Barbara Jackson, Executive Director, Relators, v. The Honorable John K. DIETZ, Judge, Respondent.

No. 96-0555.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 19, 1996.

Lalon C. Peale, Wm. Charles Bundren, Dallas, for Relator.

J. Patrick Wiseman, Austin, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Two days ago, on Monday, June 17, 1996, the Republican Party of Texas filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion to stay a district court’s temporary injunction order. The order, issued on Friday, June 14, prohibited the Republican Party from refusing to provide a booth at the 1996 Republican Party of Texas Convention to the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that supports equal civil rights for gay and lesbian individuals. The order also prohibited the Republican Party from refusing to print and insert in every convention program an advertisement prepared by the Log Cabin Republicans. The district court found that the constitutional and contractual rights of the Log Cabin Republicans were violated by the Republican Party’s decision to deny them a booth and a printed advertisement at the Convention.

Because of the statewide importance of the constitutional issues this case raises and because the Convention begins tomorrow, June 20, we expedited consideration of the case. We received a response yesterday from the Log Cabin Republicans, and heard oral argument today. We cannot, in this limited time, prepare a full opinion addressing all of the issues presented. However, under Rule 121 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we can grant the motion for leave if we are of “the tentative opinion that relator is entitled to the relief sought,” and we can grant temporary relief if the facts show that relator will be prejudiced in the absence of such relief. Tex.R.App. P. 121. These standards have been met. We are tentatively of the opinion that state action is required for there *933to have been a violation of the constitutional rights asserted by the Log Cabin Republicans and that such action was not present under the facts of this case; that the contract claims of the Log Cabin Republicans do not warrant the relief granted by the district court; and that mandamus relief may be appropriate under the unique and compelling circumstances of this case. *See generally O’Brien v. Brown,*409 U.S. 1, 5, 92 S.Ct. 2718, 2720-21, 34 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the Court grants the Republican Party’s emergency motion to stay the temporary injunction issued by the district court. The Court also grants the Party’s motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. Tex.R.App. P. 121. We retain jurisdiction over this original proceeding for purposes of rendering a judgment and issuing an opinion on the merits of the petition for writ of mandamus.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17765]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11309]


Missouri Disaster Number MO-00029

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of MISSOURI 
(FEMA-1773-DR), dated 06/25/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/01/2008 through 07/18/2008.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/25/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/25/2008

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
MISSOURI, dated 06/25/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties:
    Audrain, Carroll, Chariton, Christian, Howard, Linn, Macon, Miller, 
Morgan, Pettis, Ray, Shelby, Stone, Sullivan, Taney, Vernon.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-17765 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Registrant as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  By:
    
    /s/ Philip Cook
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Thomas F. DardenPhilip Cook
    
    
    
    Thomas F. DardenSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
    
    
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Auditors

The
Board of Directors
Samsonite Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-05467, 333-19281, 333-20775, 333-28663,
333-52185, 333-53935, and 333-57014) on Form S-8 of Samsonite Corporation of our report dated March 19, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Samsonite Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive
loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 2002, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
January 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation.

| |  | KPMG LLP
| |  | --------

Denver,
Colorado
April 26, 2002



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6253 

CARLOS ORTIZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BLEDSOE, Warden, United States Penitentiary,

Lee County,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-512-7)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Ortiz, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b), in which he sought reconsideration of the court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Ortiz v. Bledsoe, No. CA-05-512-7 (W.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2006). We

grant Ortiz’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL D. VANCE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-11368

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEBRA SCUTT,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

JUDGMENT

The above entitled matter having come before the Court on a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, Honorable George Caram Steeh, a United States District

Judge, presiding, and in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order

entered this date,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be, and the same hereby is, CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. 

Dated: February 29, 2012

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: s/Josephine Chaffee 

 DEPUTY COURT CLERK

2:09-cv-11368-GCS-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 02/29/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 931
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Claude W. Moffatt,

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 09-12320

v. Hon. Sean F. Cox

Department of the Treasury,

Defendant(s).

________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

 AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff submitted his Complaint and Application to Proceed in forma pauperis and for

Appointment of Counsel on June 16, 2009. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Application and

has determined that he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s income is

$2,200.00 per month, and the financial information in the application does not indicate that

Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee.

Likewise, Plaintiff is not entitled to appointment of counsel. Typically, this court

appoints counsel in a case only under exceptional circumstances and, in any event, only after the

claims have survived a dispositive motion. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case

that would warrant the appointment of counsel at this time, and plaintiff’s claims have not yet

been tested by a dispositive motion;

 Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis, and

Plaintiff's Application for Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee by

August 20, 2009. Failure to pay the filing fee by this deadline may result in dismissal of the 

2:09-cv-12320-SFC-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 16
complaint.

 SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: August 4, 2009

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

August 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12320-SFC-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Claude W. Moffatt,

Plaintiff(s), Case No. 09-12320

v. Hon. Sean F. Cox

Department of Treasury,

Defendant(s).

________________________________________________/

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 4, 2009, a copy of the Order Denying Application to 

Proceed in forma pauperis and appointment of counsel was served upon Claude W. Moffatt by 

First Class Mail at the address below:

Claude W. Moffatt

8895 Lenore

Redford, MI 48239

S/Jennifer Hernandez

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12320-SFC-PJK Doc # 4 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

PETER DEMCHENKO,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (CITY OF PHILADELPHIA),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 500 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
 

SOUTHERN DIVISION
 

GARY and SUSAN HARDY, 

Plaintiff, Case Number: 09-11799 

v. JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant. 

--------------_/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On June 1,2009, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Gary and Susan Hardy to show cause, 

within 15 days, that this Court has proper subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (Doc. No. 

3). On June 25,2009, Plaintiffs filed an untimely response to the Court's order, stating that this 

Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330. Plaintiffs also 

asserted that this Court has jurisdiction because they made Freedom of Information Act requests. 

Plaintiffs' response to the order to show cause does not establish subject matter 

jurisdiction. The jurisdictional statute cited by Plaintiffs, 28 U.S.C. § 1330, confers original 

jurisdiction to the federal courts over matters between U.S. citizens and foreign states. Plaintiffs 

do not allege any claims against a foreign state; therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 does not establish 

subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, the fact that Plaintiffs made FOIA requests does not 

bring this matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiffs have not stated a 

federal claim, nor is this a diversity action. 

1 

2:09-cv-11799-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 07/17/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 177
This Court also notes that, on July 6, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. 

Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not state a federal claim, nor do Plaintiffs allege that 

diversity jurisdiction exists. Plaintiffs' amended complaint, therefore, does not establish subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h)(3), this Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED.
 

PAUL D. BORMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: 7 -/7 -0 7 

Detroit, Michigan 

2
 

2:09-cv-11799-PDB-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 07/17/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 178
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL CAREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATION POINT LOAN SERVICES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-13003

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter came before the court on defendant Trott & Trott, P. C.'s November 22, 2010

motion to dismiss and its January 3, 2011 renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Paul Carey has failed

to file a response to either motion, and no oral argument was heard.

In its initial motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that plaintiff Carey's September 14, 2009

Amended Complaint had no bearing on his own foreclosure, as it referenced real property in Las

Vegas, Nevada, not Plaintiff's own property. On December 1, 2010, this court ordered plaintiff

Carey to file a response to Defendant's initial motion to dismiss on or before December 17, 2010.

Plaintiff failed to respond to the order and has taken no substantive action in this case. Moreover,

Plaintiff failed to appear for a September 23, 2010 scheduling conference as ordered by the court.

Pursuant to Rules 16(f)(1)(A) and 34(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court

may dismiss an action as a sanction for a party's failure to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial

conference. Plaintiff Carey has failed to prosecute his case for over a year, failed to appear for the

scheduling conference as ordered by the court, and failed to file responses when ordered to do so.

Therefore, the court will grant defendant Trott & Trott's renewed motion to dismiss.

5:09-cv-13003-JCO-VMM Doc # 30 Filed 01/13/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 294
2

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Trott & Trott's January 2, 2001 renewed motion to dismiss is

GRANTED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: January 13, 2011

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

on this date, January 13, 2011, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

5:09-cv-13003-JCO-VMM Doc # 30 Filed 01/13/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 295
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
     I, Ricardo Figueiredo Bomeny , certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brazil Fast Food Corp.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented 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 registrant and I have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (b)  intentionally omitted;  (c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d)  disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.        Date: April 15, 2005 /s/ Ricardo Figueiredo Bomeny   Ricardo Figueiredo Bomeny   Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
| 1.   | I      am Chief Financial Officer of Team Nation Holdings      Corporation. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,      2008, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with      the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which      contains consolidated financialstatements. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| a.   | The      periodic report containing the consolidated financial statements fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange      Act, and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b.   | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations      of the issuer for the periodspresented. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|