alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60279 

Conference Calendar

 

ERIC FORD WASH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

WALTER BOOKER, Superintendent; 

JOHN H. BEARRY, Doctor, Doctor at Unit 42,

Parchman,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:00-CV-226-P-D

- - - - - - - - - -

October 25, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Ford Wash, Mississippi prisoner # 76258, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous. Wash argues that prison officials unconstitutionally

denied medical treatment for problems with his tonsils, kidneys,

and left leg. He further argues that the district court did not

permit him to conduct adequate discovery. Wash also has filed
No. 01-60279

-2-

motions for appointment of counsel and for a temporary

restraining order. These motions are DENIED.

Wash fails to demonstrate that the district court’s

dismissal as frivolous was an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.

1998). He filed an identical claim in state court that was

denied on the merits. Wash argues that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint should not be dismissed as res judicata because his

state court filing was not a federal civil rights action, but

merely a motion for a court order for surgery or additional

tests. Under the Mississippi law of res judicata, the state

court judgment had a preclusive effect on Wash’s filing a 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in federal court. See Migra v. Warren

City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 84-85 (1984); Riley

v. Moreland, 537 So. 2d 1348, 1354 (Miss. 1989). The fact that

Wash sought monetary relief in the instant civil rights action

but did not seek monetary relief in the prior state action does

not bar the application of the doctrine of res judicata. See

Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 559 (5th Cir.

1983).

Wash’s appeal has no arguable basis in law or fact;

therefore, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See King v. Howard, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district

court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 counts as a strike

against Wash. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th

Cir. 1996). This court’s dismissal counts as another strike. If

Wash accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma
No. 01-60279

-3-

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

American Gear & Engineering, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12105

Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation, Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING ANSWER AND 

REQUIRING CORPORATE DEFENDANT TO RETAIN COUNSEL

On June 1, 2009, Plaintiff American Gear & Engineering, Inc. filed this action against

Defendant Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation. The docket reflects that on June 22, 2009, a

document identified as an answer was filed on behalf of Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation

by 

James E. Imrie, as Chief Operating Officer. (Docket Entry No. 4). 

 It is well established, however, that a “corporation cannot appear in federal court except

through an attorney.” Doherty v. American Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984). 

The Answer does not identify James E. Imrie as an attorney and the State Bar of Michigan

Directory does not list him as an attorney licensed to practice in Michigan. Thus, James E. Imrie

may NOT represent Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation in this action. Wisconsin Machine

Tool Corporation may only appear and proceed in this case through an attorney. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Answer filed on June 22, 2009, on behalf of

Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation is STRICKEN.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation must have an

2:09-cv-12105-SFC-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 07/16/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 26
attorney file an appearance and an Answer in this matter no later than July 28, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Date: July 16, 2009

I hereby certify that on July 16, 2009, a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record by electronic means and by First Class Mail upon:

Wisconsin Machine Tool Corporation

3225 Gateway Road

Suite 100

Brookfield, Wisconsin 53045

S/ Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12105-SFC-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 07/16/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 27
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Deng
Shan, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Largo Vista
Group, Ltd (this “Amendment”).;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this Amendment 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 Amendment;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this Amendment, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this Amendment;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to  the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
Amendment is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
Amendment (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)
presented in this Amendment our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely  affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: May
11, 2005
 
 /s/Deng
Shan
 ---------------------------------------
 Deng
Shan, Principal Executive Officer
gase_ex107.htm


EXHIBIT 10.7


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 


 


 


4
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 29, 2015 

v No. 323883 

Oakland Circuit Court 

CONRAD RAYMOND GARDNER, LC No. 2013-247342-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and BECKERING and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

SAWYER, P.J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the result only. 

/s/ David H. Sawyer
Exhibit 99.2

          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 annual report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph F. Bukofski, Chief Accounting Officer of CAI Equipment
Leasing IV Corp., 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:

    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/Joseph F. Bukofski                           Dated:  March 28, 2003
         ---------------------
         Joseph F. Bukofski
Title:   Chief Accounting Officer


                                       41
#### Ernesto MONTANA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lan E. HARRELSON, Warden, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 72-1484

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1972.

*1092Stephen R. Thompson, Dallas, Tex., court appointed, for petitioner-appellant.

Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant sued the warden of his Texas state correctional institution under 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1982, 1983 (1970), seeking damages for an alleged seizure of personal property. He alleged jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The court assumed for the purpose of argument that the defendant had taken certain personal property from the plaintiff and had refused to return it to him. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction on the ground that “Section 1983 does not extend to property and monetary rights generally,” and that Section 1982 requires the deprivation of property to be racially motivated, which was not alleged. The court thus relied on the traditional view that the exception provided in Section 1343 (3) to the minimum amount in controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction was limited to deprivation of personal liberty, which is incapable of money valuation. This view originated in Justice Stone’s concurring opinion in Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939).

Subsequent to the dismissal of this case by the district court, however the United States Supreme Court specifically rejected the property right-personal liberty dichotomy in Lynch v. Household Finance Co., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972), which holds that there is no distinction between personal liberties and proprietary rights with respect to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3), and that the jurisdictional amount provided by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (a) is not required in a Section 1983 action. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari in Weddle v. Director, Patux-ent Institution, 436 F.2d 342 (4th Cir. 1970), and vacated and remanded the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction for further consideration in the light of *Lynch,*405 U.S. 1036, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972). The *Weddle*case, similar to the one at bar, involved a suit for personal property valued at $3.52.

The order of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue in the light of *Lynch.*

We express no opinion at this stage of the proceeding as to whether or not there are any other grounds for dismissal of the complaint for lack of federal court jurisdiction.

Vacated and remanded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JONCEY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-13686-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

CITY OF FLINT, ALVERN LOCK, FLINT 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, RONALD 

NELSON, BRIAN COLEMAN, and 

JEFFREY COLLINS,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Magistrate Judge Mark A Randon issued a report and recommendation [Dkt. # 29] on June

22, 2010, recommending that the motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 17] filed by Defendants City of Flint,

Avern Lock, Flint Police Department, Brian Coleman, and Jeffrey Collins be granted and Plaintiff

Joncey Smith’s claims against those Defendants be dismissed. Judge Randon also recommended

that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ronald Nelson be dismissed without prejudice because

Nelson has not been served. Any party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days

after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party objects to the report, the district court is not

obligated to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Judge Randon’s report and recommendation [Dkt.

# 29] is ADOPTED. 
-2-

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 17] is GRANTED. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants City of Flint, Alvern

Lock, Flint Police Department, Brian Coleman, and Jeffrey Collins are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ronald Nelson are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 21, 2010

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 July 21, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50700

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEVIN JEROME MEDLOCK, also known as Kevin Medlock

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CR-17-2

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Jerome Medlock, federal prisoner # 35987-180, pleaded guilty in

2004 to possession with the intent to distribute five grams or more of “crack”

cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), and was sentenced to

a 130-month term of imprisonment. He appeals the district court’s denial of his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. We review the denial

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 24, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50700

2

of a § 3582 motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Boe, 117 F.3d 830,

831 (5th Cir. 1997).

Medlock’s argument that the district court should be able to exercise

discretion under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to resentence him

relies on the false premise that § 3582 applies to his situation. “Section

3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment when it is

based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by an

amendment to the Guidelines, if such a reduction is consistent with the policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” United States v.

Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Section

3582(c)(2) does not apply to Medlock because his sentencing range has not

subsequently been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines. Amendment

706 reduced the base offense levels set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) applicable to

most crack cocaine offenses. See United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852, 861 (5th

Cir. 2008). A reduction in Medlock’s base offense level under § 2D1.1 pursuant

to Amendment 706 would not affect his guidelines range because his base offense

level and concomitant range was calculated under § 4B1.1, the career offender

guideline. Because Medlock’s guidelines range was not derived from the

quantity of crack cocaine involved in the offense, he was not sentenced based on

a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. See § 3582(c)(2).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Medlock’s motion

for a reduction of sentence. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

Government’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. Medlock’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
#### Vernon Matthews v. State

No. 25433.

October 31, 1951.

Hon. Edgar Taylor, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey and gin in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the penalty, a fine of $750.00 and sixty days in jail.

The record reveals that appellant was tried on December 15, 1950, which was during the December term of the county court of Scurry County which had begun on December 6, 1950, and ended on December 31, 1950. He was granted 60 days after the expiration of the term to file bills of exception and statement of facts by order of the court.

The statement of facts herein shows to have been filed on April 25, 1951, and therefore cannot be considered. The bills of exception were likewise filed too late.

Nothing being presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER08-1175-001]

Take notice that on July 18, 2008, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation filed an amendment to its June 26, 2008 filing.

                    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).  Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the                           ( print page 45757)                        appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding.  Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.  Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.  Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.                

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.  There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).  For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free).  For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2008.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-18007 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Filed 9/18/2015 3:34:52 PM

Billy Fox

District Clerk

Bowie County, Texas

Karen Raney, Deputy

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/23/2015 10:57:05 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk