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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-41128

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL ALAN SMARR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-901-1

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Alan Smarr appeals the revocation of his supervised release

imposed following his conviction for transporting illegal aliens. He argues that

the district court’s denial of his motion for a continuance of the revocation

hearing violated his due process right to a fair hearing. Smarr argues that he

was denied adequate disclosure of the evidence against him, adequate time to

investigate and interview witnesses, the right to present evidence, and the right

to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41128

2

Although Smarr did not receive the supplemental report until the day of

the revocation hearing and the Government did not object to the continuance,

Smarr has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his

motion for a continuance or violated his due process rights. Smarr had

approximately seven weeks after counsel was appointed to investigate the

charges, conduct discovery, locate any potential witnesses or exculpatory

evidence, and prepare for the hearing. Smarr did not file for a continuance

before the hearing. He moved orally for a continuance at the hearing because

he did not receive the probation department’s supplemental report until the day

of the revocation hearing. Smarr does not explain why he could not have

investigated the charges and discovered whether a videotape or witnesses

existed prior to the date of the final revocation hearing. Smarr does not identify

any specific favorable evidence or favorable witnesses that would have been

discovered if a continuance had been granted. Because he has not shown that

he suffered “specific and compelling or serious prejudice” due to the district

court’s denial of his motion for a continuance, he has not shown that the district

court abused its discretion in denying his motion. See United States v. Barnett,

197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999). Further, because Smarr has not shown that

he suffered prejudice as a result of the denial of the continuance, he has not

shown that the denial of the continuance violated his due process rights. See

United States v. Tippens, 39 F.3d 88, 90 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States

v. Ayers, 946 F.2d 1127, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED.
#### MILLER et ux., for Use of MILLER, v. TRASCHER. *

No. 14221.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 19, 1932.

*28Paul W. Maloney and J. A. Morales, both, of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. A. Woodville, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

*

Rehearing denied January 16, 1933.

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiffs, mother and father, bring this action for the use and benefit of their 18 year old minor son, Andrew J. Miller, who, they .allege, was injured by a blow delivered by defendant, Trascher.

The defense is that the Miller boy had thrown a rock and injured the 6 year old son of Trascher, who, “in his excitement, ran over and chastised the plaintiff’s son and struck him with no intention of injuring him.” It is also contended that the “boy ran off and was not injured at all.”

Trascher in the criminal court was convicted of assault and battery, and, when this civil suit for damages was tried below, judgment for $100 was rendered against him.

As a justification of his attack upon young Miller, Trascher states that as he approached Miller the latter arose and “put up his props,” which we understand means assumed a belligerent attitude. The evidence leaves us satisfied that young Miller did not assume this fighting attitude, and that for this reason the contention now sought to be established that Miller was in fact the aggressor and that Trascher struck him in self-defense is not sustained.

The record leaves no doubt that young Miller threw a rock which struck the young son of Trascher, but, in spite of this, we feel that Trascher’s attack upon Miller was not justified under the circumstances, since Miller was seated when Trascher struck him, and since Trascher was very much older and manifestly was not required at that time to do anything further in defense of his son. No further attack by Miller on young Trascher seemed to be contemplated when the blow from which this suit resulted was delivered.

 The amount allowed below was $100, and this is not excessive, since the Miller boy was under the treatment of a doctor for about •eight weeks. The parents who brought the suit appear solely as the representatives of their son, and the father seeks nothing in his own behalf; therefore no amount can be awarded for medical expenses or other community expenditures which the parents found it necessary to make. Bearman v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 17 La. App. 92, 134 So. 787.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 06/12/09 PageID.1 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 06/12/09 PageID.2 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 06/12/09 PageID.3 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 06/12/09 PageID.4 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-12269-RHC-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 06/12/09 PageID.5 Page 5 of 5
-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 ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM PHONING OR PHYSICALLY APPEARING AT

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT UNUM LIFE INSURANCE’S LAW FIRM

On June 18, 2010, this court entered an order to show cause why plaintiff and any

other persons acting on her behalf should not be permanently enjoined and prohibited from

contacting counsel for defendant, or anyone employed with his law firm, either by telephone

or by physically appearing at his law firm, except by written correspondence. The parties

appeared for a hearing on this matter on June 22, 2010. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff, or any individual acting on her behalf, shall not contact

K. Scott Hamilton, or any persons employed with the law firm Dickinson Wright P.L.L.C.,

by telephone or by physically appearing at the law firm’s office. 

IT IS ORDERED that all communication between the parties shall only occur by

written correspondence. 

SO ORDERED.
-2-

Dated: June 22, 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

June 22, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTO**

** SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,UNITED STATES CODE,**

** AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned, as principal executive officer and principal financialofficer of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certifythat to their knowledge:

1)           the Company’s Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2)           the information contained in the Company’sForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.
|                     | /s/ Christoph Westphal                |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                     | Christoph Westphal                    |
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                     | (principal executive officer)         |
|                     |                                  |
|                     |                                  |
|                     | /s/ Garen Bohlin                      |
|                     | Garen Bohlin                          |
|                     | Chief Operating Officer               |
|                     | (principal financial officer)         |
|                     |                                  |
|                     |                                  |
| Dated: November 14, 2007 |                                  |

 

 

----
EVEREST REINSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.

EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statement , Nos.
333-1972  and  333-05771  of  Everest  Reinsurance   Holdings,   Inc.  (formerly
Prudential Reinsurance Holdings, Inc.) on Forms S-8 of our report dated February
23,  1996  appearing  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Everest  Reinsurance
Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Selected  Consolidated
Financial Data" in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
March 18, 1997


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4225 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4225

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
         coastwise trade and fisheries for the vessel HEY, DA!.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

Mr. Bass (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
         coastwise trade and fisheries for the vessel HEY, DA!.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), 
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and 
sections 12106 and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary 
of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade and 
fisheries for the vessel HEY, DA! (United States official number 
1032531).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3913 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3913

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
            coastwise trade for the vessel WESTERN ATLANTIC.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 1996

Mr. Burton of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
            coastwise trade for the vessel WESTERN ATLANTIC.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), 
section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 
12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel WESTERN ATLANTIC 
(Panama identification number 10484-80-CEO).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2





STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Richard J. DeGarmo, Managing Director of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the six months ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Richard J. DeGarmo


Richard J. DeGarmo, Managing Director


Dated: August 22, 2011
2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 1 of 7    Pg ID 12842

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 2 of 7    Pg ID 12843

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 3 of 7    Pg ID 12844

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 4 of 7    Pg ID 12845

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 5 of 7    Pg ID 12846

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 6 of 7    Pg ID 12847

2:09-md-02042-SFC   Doc # 483-5   Filed 04/30/14   Pg 7 of 7    Pg ID 12848
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 March 10, 2008 and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on March 19, 2008, (73 FR 14839), Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc., Attn: Regulatory Compliance, 9115 Hague Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleLysergic acid diethylamide (7315)
IAlphamethadol (9605)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
ICocaine (9041)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMorphine (9300)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of diagnostic products for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. 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. 952(a) and § 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer 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. E8-18064 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7519** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. REYMUNDO MONGE RODRIGUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00004

- MR

- 1 ; 1:16

- cv - 00228

- MR )

Submitted : February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Reymundo Monge Rodriguez , Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, U nited S tates Attorney , Michael E. Savage , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assis tant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Reymundo Monge Rodriguez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constit utional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims i s debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rodriguez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMMUNICATION ACCESS CENTER

FOR THE DEAF AND HARD OF

HEARING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE CARRIER

ASSOCIATION, et al, 

Defendants.

/

CIVIL ACTION NO.09-13506

DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DEPOSIT INTO

COURT REGISTRY PURSUANT TO FRCP 67

This action was removed from state court on September 09, 2009 by PNC Bank,

NA. Plaintiff has filed the instant motion for an order to allow the disputed funds to be

deposited with the Court. The Court being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall tender a certified check for deposit made payable to the

Clerk of the Court no later than ten business days from the date of entry of

this Order in the amount of $3,528,378.00.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall deposit the funds in an interest bearing account.

3. The deposited funds are subject to the ultimate disposition of the Court in this

matter.

4. The Clerk is directed to deduct from the account any fee authorized by the

Judicial Conference of the United States.

Dated: November 19, 2009 s/Avern Cohn

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13506-AC-VMM Doc # 16 Filed 11/19/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 138
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20215

D-13 ROBERT WYNN Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DETAINING DEFENDANT 

PENDING SENTENCING FOR PROBATION VIOLATIONS

On September 2, 2010, Defendant Robert Wynn (“Defendant”) pleaded guilty to

violations of his probation, including testing positive for controlled substances. The Court finds

that Defendant’s continued use of heroin, while in a drug-abuse treatment program indicates that

Defendant is a danger to himself and to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143. Accordingly, the

Court ORDERS that Defendant shall be DETAINED by the United States Marshals pending

sentencing for the probation violation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: September 3, 2010

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

September 3, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager