alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated April 9, 2008, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 16, 2008, (73 FR 20718), Research Triangle Institute, Kenneth H. Davis Jr., Hermann Building, East Institute Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle, North Carolina 27709, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
ICocaine (9041)
II
 The Institute will manufacture small quantities of cocaine and marihuana derivatives for use by their customers in analytical kits, reagents, and reference standards as directed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Research Triangle Institute to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Research Triangle Institute to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: July 30, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E8-18067 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4020

To provide for the retention of the name of the mountain at the Devils

Tower National Monument in Wyoming known as ‘‘Devils Tower’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

Mrs. CUBIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

To provide for the retention of the name of the mountain

at the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming

known as ‘‘Devils Tower’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEVILS TOWER.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The mountain at the Devils

5 Tower National Monument in Wyoming, located at 44 de6 grees, 42 minutes, 58 seconds north latitude, 104 degrees,

7 35 minutes, 32 seconds west longitude, shall continue to

8 be known and designated as ‘‘Devils Tower’’.

9 (b) LEGAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law,

10 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the
2

•HR 4020 IH

1 United States to the mountain referred to in subsection

2 (a) is deemed to be a reference to ‘‘Devils Tower’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
13 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 Electric Car Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary Spaniak, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 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 Company.

Date: November 20, 2009





/s/ Gary Spaniak

Gary Spaniak

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATED OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20020

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

WILLIAM ELMER RICE,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT ONE, AND TAKING THE RULE 11

PLEA AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on June 16, 2009, by United States Magistrate Judge Charles

E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. On the same day, the magistrate judge issued his

report recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty. As of today’s date, no

party has filed any objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The failure to

file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object

to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 24] is ADOPTED.

1:09-cr-20020-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 74
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to count one is ACCEPTED,

and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 26] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 1, 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 July 1, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20020-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 75
Exhibit 32.2  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 China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Yan Zheng, Chief 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  November 18, 2008 /s/ Yan Zheng Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert Auduon, President 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 my knowledge:

     1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three month
          period ended September 30, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report"), fully
          complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: November 13, 2007
                                       /s/ Robert Auduon
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert Auduon
                                       President and Principal Executive Officer
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TAMARA CIARAMITARO, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-13492

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE, et al., 

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RECALCULATE LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFIT

OFFSETS AND RETROACTIVE PAYOUT, REQUEST FOR INTEREST, ATTORNEY’S

FEES AND CIVIL PENALTIES 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to recalculate long-term

disability benefit offsets and retroactive payout, request for interest, attorney’s fees and civil

penalties, filed on June 20, 2011. The parties appeared for a hearing on July 25, 2011, and

as stated on the record: 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to recalculate long-term disability benefit

offsets and retroactive payout, request for interest, attorney’s fees and civil penalties is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. 

Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”) shall file, on or

before August 26, 2011, that portion of the administrative record not previously filed,

together with an explanation of plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits award, and a

recalculation of plaintiff’s long-term disability award, if necessary. 

2:09-cv-13492-GCS-RSW Doc # 46 Filed 07/26/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 437
-2-

Plaintiff shall file a response to Unum’s explanation of benefits and recalculation of

the long-term disability award on or before September 26, 2011. 

Unum may file a reply to plaintiff’s response on or before October 7, 2011. 

The court will determine if a hearing is needed upon review of the parties

submissions. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2010

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

July 26, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13492-GCS-RSW Doc # 46 Filed 07/26/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 438
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 536

AN ACT

To prohibit the use of Highway 209 within the Delaware

Water Gap National Recreation Area by certain commercial 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. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective at noon on September

5 30, 2005, the use of Highway 209 within Delaware Water

6 Gap National Recreation Area by commercial vehicles,

7 when such use is not connected with the operation of the

8 recreation area, is prohibited, except as provided in sub9 section (b).
2

HR 536 RH

1 (b) LOCAL BUSINESS USE PROTECTED.—Subsection

2 (a) does not apply with respect to the use of commercial

3 vehicles to serve businesses located within or in the vicinity

4 of the recreation area, as determined by the Secretary.

5 (c) CONFORMING PROVISIONS.—(1) Paragraphs (1)

6 through (3) of the third undesignated paragraph under

7 the heading ‘‘ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS’’ in

8 chapter VII of title I of Public Law 98–63 (97 Stat. 329)

9 are repealed, effective September 30, 2005.

10 (2) Prior to noon on September 30, 2005, the Sec11 retary shall collect and utilize a commercial use fee from

12 commercial vehicles in accordance with paragraphs (1)

13 through (3) of such third undesignated paragraph. Such

14 fee shall not exceed $25 per trip.

Passed the House of Representatives March 14,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 536

AN ACT

To prohibit the use of Highway 209 within the

purposes.by certain commercial vehicles, and for otherDelaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
#### Ernestine THOMAS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14719.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 28, 1934.

Spencer, Gidiere, Phelps & Dunbar and Louis B. Claverie, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. I. McCain and Herman L. Midlo, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied Oct. 1, 1934. Writ of certiorari granted Nov. 26, 1934.

JANVIER, Judge.

The issues presented here are identical with those which we considered in the matter of Julia Crump, -widow of Wilson Miles, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 156 So. 35, decided by us this day.

For the reasons therein given,

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed at her cost.

Reversed.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 535

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning National

Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mrs. LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning

National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

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 ‘‘Corning National Fish

5 Hatchery Conveyance Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCH7 ERY TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

10 of the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas with-
2

•HR 535 IH

1 out reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the

2 United States in and to the property described in sub3 section (b), for use by the Arkansas Game and Fish Com4 mission as part of the State of Arkansas fish culture pro5 gram.

6 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred

7 to in subsection (a) is the property known as the Corning

8 National Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William

9 H. Donham State Fish Hatchery), located one mile west

10 of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway 67 in

11 Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres (more

12 or less), and all improvements and related personal prop13 erty under the control of the Secretary that is located on

14 that property, including buildings, structures, and equip15 ment.

16 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—

17 All right, title, and interest in property described in sub18 section (b) shall revert to the United States if the property

19 ceases to be used as part of the State of Arkansas fish

20 culture program. The State of Arkansas shall ensure that

21 the property reverting to the United States is in substan22 tially the same or better condition as at the time of trans23 fer.

Æ
À“×Ã¤‹ ÕÃflÃ¤Õ ›—ÀŒÃ —⁄ fl––¤fl‘Õ

⁄—Œ Ãÿ¤ “×“Ãÿ ›×Œ›À×Ã

À“×Ã¤‹ ÕÃflÃ¤Õ —⁄ fl”¤Œ×›flÙ

 –¥ø·2 ̈·oo Û fl°°a¥¥aaÙ

TMÚ

¤‹...flŒ‹ ‘ÀÃÃÙ fl’fl Ã±2ßÙ

 ‹aoa2oø2 ̈ Û fl°°a¥¥ø2 ̈Ú

“±Ú ðÁÛÎðÔËÓ

‹Ú›Ú “±Ú ËÊðÍÛ1⁄2ÆÛðððÍÔÛ÷ ÕÛÓ

›a2 ̈Æø¥ ‹·­ ̈Æ·1⁄2 ̈ ±o ›ø¥·o±Æ2·øÙ 

Õø2 ̈ø fl2ø

—Œ‹¤Œ

fiao±ÆaÊ fl‘flŒ›M“Ù ‘¤fl « ø2o ŸŒflfi¤ŒÙ ›·Æ1⁄2 ́· ̈ ÷ ́o1a­Ú

...a ·2­ ̈Æ ́1⁄2 ̈  ̈ ̧a ›¥aÆμ  ̈± ©· ̈ ̧oÆø©  ̈ ̧a 3a3±Æø2o ́3 o·­°±­· ̈·±2 o·¥ao ±2 ÷ ́¥ß

ÓÔÙ ÓðÔðÙ ø2o  ̈± o·¥a  ̈ ̧a ø ̈ ̈ø1⁄2 ̧ao 3a3±Æø2o ́3 o·­°±­· ̈·±2 ­·3 ́¥ ̈ø2a± ́­¥ß ©· ̈ ̧

 ̈ ̧·­ ±ÆoaÆÚ

⁄×‘¤‹

÷À‘ ÓÍ ÓðÔð

”—‘‘« ›Ú ‹...«¤ŒÙ ›‘¤Œ’

ÀÚÕÚ ›—ÀŒÃ —⁄ fl––¤fl‘Õ
Ã ̧·­ o·­°±­· ̈·±2 ·­ 2± ̈ ø°°Æ±°Æ·ø ̈a o±Æ ° ́æ¥·1⁄2ø ̈·±2 ø2o ·­ 2± ̈ °Æa1⁄2aoa2 ̈ ˆ

a®1⁄2a° ̈ ø­ °Æ±TM·oao æß Á ̈ ̧ ›·ÆÚ ŒÚ ÌÍÛÌÚ

Ã ̧a °ø2a¥  ́2ø2·3± ́­¥ß 1⁄2±21⁄2¥ ́oa­  ̈ ̧·­ 1⁄2ø­a ·­ ­ ́· ̈øæ¥a o±Æ oa1⁄2·­·±2 ˆˆ

©· ̈ ̧± ́ ̈ ±Æø¥ øÆ1 ́3a2 ̈Ú Õaa ⁄aoÚ ŒÚ fl°°Ú –Ú ÌÏ ̄ø ̃ ̄Ó ̃Ú

“—Ã ⁄—Œ –Àfi‘×›flÃ×—“

À“×Ã¤‹ ÕÃflÃ¤Õ ›—ÀŒÃ —⁄ fl––¤fl‘Õ

⁄—Œ Ãÿ¤ “×“Ãÿ ›×Œ›À×Ã

À“×Ã¤‹ ÕÃflÃ¤Õ —⁄ fl”¤Œ×›flÙ

 –¥ø·2 ̈·oo Û fl°°a¥¥aaÙ

TMÚ

¤‹...flŒ‹ ‘ÀÃÃÙ

 ‹aoa2oø2 ̈ Û fl°°a¥¥ø2 ̈Ú

“±Ú ðÁÛÎðÔËÓ

‹Ú›Ú “±Ú ËÊðÍÛ1⁄2ÆÛðððÍÔÛ÷ Õ

”¤”—Œfl“‹À”ˆ

fl°°aø¥ oÆ±3  ̈ ̧a À2· ̈ao Õ ̈ø ̈a­ ‹·­ ̈Æ·1⁄2 ̈ ›± ́Æ ̈

o±Æ  ̈ ̧a ›a2 ̈Æø¥ ‹·­ ̈Æ·1⁄2 ̈ ±o ›ø¥·o±Æ2·ø

÷ø3a­ Ú Õa¥2øÙ ‹·­ ̈Æ·1⁄2 ̈ ÷ ́o1aÙ –Æa­·o·21

Õ ́æ3· ̈ ̈ao ÷ ́2a ÓÁÙ ÓðÔðˆˆ 

fiao±ÆaÊ fl‘flŒ›M“Ù ‘¤fl «Ù ø2o ŸŒflfi¤ŒÙ ›·Æ1⁄2 ́· ̈ ÷ ́o1a­Ú

¤o©øÆo ‘ ́ ̈ ̈ ø°°aø¥­ oÆ±3  ̈ ̧a ÔÎÛ3±2 ̈ ̧ ­a2 ̈a21⁄2a ·3°±­ao o±¥¥±©·21  ̧·­

1 ́·¥ ̈ßÛ°¥aø 1⁄2±2TM·1⁄2 ̈·±2 o±Æ 1⁄2±2­°·Æø1⁄2ßÙ ·2 TM·±¥ø ̈·±2 ±o ÔË ÀÚÕÚ›Ú y ÌÈÔÙ ø2o

a21ø1·21 ·2 3±2a ̈øÆß  ̈Æø2­ø1⁄2 ̈·±2­ ©· ̈ ̧ 1⁄2Æ·3·2ø¥¥ß oaÆ·TMao °Æ±°aÆ ̈ßÙ ·2 TM·±¥ø ̈·±2 ±o

⁄×‘¤‹

÷À‘ ÓÍ ÓðÔð

”—‘‘« ›Ú ‹...«¤ŒÙ ›‘¤Œ’

ÀÚÕÚ ›—ÀŒÃ —⁄ fl––¤fl‘Õ
Ó ðÁÛÎðÔËÓ

ÔË ÀÚÕÚ›Ú yy ÔÁÎÈ ̄ø ̃ ø2o ÓÚ – ́Æ­ ́ø2 ̈  ̈± fl2oaÆ­ TMÚ ›ø¥·o±Æ2·øÙ ÌËÍ ÀÚÕÚ ÈÌË

 ̄ÔÁÍÈ ̃Ù ‘ ́ ̈ ̈é­ 1⁄2± ́2­a¥  ̧ø­ o·¥ao ø æÆ·ao ­ ̈ø ̈·21  ̈ ̧aÆa øÆa 2± 1Æ± ́2o­ o±Æ Æa¥·aoÙ ø¥±21

©· ̈ ̧ ø 3± ̈·±2  ̈± ©· ̈ ̧oÆø© ø­ 1⁄2± ́2­a¥ ±o Æa1⁄2±ÆoÚ ...a  ̧øTMa °Æ±TM·oao  ̈ ̧a ø°°a¥¥ø2 ̈

©· ̈ ̧  ̈ ̧a ±°°±Æ ̈ ́2· ̈ß  ̈± o·¥a ø °Æ± ­a ­ ́°°¥a3a2 ̈ø¥ æÆ·aoÚ “± °Æ± ­a ­ ́°°¥a3a2 ̈ø¥

æÆ·ao ±Æ ø2­©aÆ·21 æÆ·ao  ̧ø­ æaa2 o·¥aoÚ

— ́Æ ·2oa°a2oa2 ̈ ÆaTM·a© ±o  ̈ ̧a Æa1⁄2±Æo ° ́Æ­ ́ø2 ̈  ̈± –a2­±2 TMÚ — ̧·±Ù ÏËË ÀÚÕÚ

ÈÎÙ ËðÛËÔ  ̄ÔÁËË ̃Ù o·­1⁄2¥±­a­ 2± øÆ1 ́øæ¥a 1Æ± ́2o­ o±Æ Æa¥·ao ±2 o·Æa1⁄2 ̈ ø°°aø¥Ú ...a

o·­3·­­  ̈ ̧a ø°°aø¥ ±o  ̈ ̧a ­a2 ̈a21⁄2a ·2 ¥·1 ̧ ̈ ±o  ̈ ̧a TMø¥·o ø°°aø¥ ©ø·TMaÆÚ Õaa À2· ̈ao

Õ ̈ø ̈a­ TMÚ “1 ́ßa2Ù ÓÌÎ ⁄ÚÌo ÔÔÈÁÙ ÔÔËÓ  ̄Á ̈ ̧ ›·ÆÚ Óððð ̃Ú

›± ́2­a¥é­ 3± ̈·±2  ̈± ©· ̈ ̧oÆø© ·­ ŸŒfl“Ã¤‹Ú

Ã ̧a 1⁄2±2TM·1⁄2 ̈·±2 ·­ fl⁄⁄×Œ”¤‹Ù ø2o  ̈ ̧a ø°°aø¥ ±o  ̈ ̧a ­a2 ̈a21⁄2a ·­

‹×Õ”×ÕÕ¤‹Ú
Exhibit
32.2








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 Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”),
I, Robert C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)             The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by this report.











Date:  October
      30, 2009
            /s/
      Robert C. OgdenRobert
      C. OgdenChief
      Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 2, 2015

jam 

# Order

Clerk March 2, 2015

150713

IN RE DILLARD

___________________________________

EDDIE L. DILLARD

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 50713

C O A: 324421

CHIPPEWA CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff

- appellant having failed to pay the

partial filing fee as required by the order of January 15, 2015 , the Clerk of the Court is

hereby directed to close this file.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Morales, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 467]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered April 10, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *4xh*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claims concerning the People’s summation remarks are not preserved for review and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find the challenged remarks were responsive to the People’s summation and could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20389 Summary Calendar

CHARLES R. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. LIEUTENANT BAILEY; SERGEANT W. JOHNSTON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WALTSON, Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12 -CV- 2520

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles R. Adams, Texas prisoner # 1247914, appeals the jury verdict in favor of the defendants in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging excessive use of force and retaliation. He argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the eviden ce. Because Adams did not move before or after the verdict for a judgment as a matter of law, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the

* Pursuant t o 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 29, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20389 Document: 00514134783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2017No. 15

- 20389

2 verdict is reviewed for plain error to determine “whether there was any evidence to support the jury verdict.” Fl owers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc. , 247 F.3d 229, 238 (5th Cir. 2001) . Defendants Johnston and Bailey testified that they used force on Adams, who was resisting being secured, in order to subdue him. They stated that they did not slam, kick, hit, elbow, or knee Adams. Johnston and Bailey also testified that they did not retaliate against Adams for exercising a constitutional right. The jury, as the trier of fact, is responsible for resolving conflicting evidence and determining witness credibility, and thus could choose to believe the defendants over the testimony of Adams and Officer Brooks

. See Martin v. Thomas , 973 F.2d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 1992). Based on that testimony, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Flowers , 247 F.3d at 238. Adams’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied , as he has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting such an appointment. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212

- 13 (5th Cir. 1982). Adams’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is also denied because he has not shown that the instant case is an exceptional

case. See Greene v. Fair , 314 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1963). Adams’s motion to expedite a ruling on his motion for an injunction is denied as moot. Finally, Adams’s motion to suspend under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2, which the Clerk’s Office construed as motion for leave to file exhibits , is denied as unnecessary because the exhibits are contained in the district court record. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED. Case: 15-20389 Document: 00514134783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2017