alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1(1)

                   Electronic Articles of Incorporation       FILED 0111362
For                                                            October 08, 2003
                                                                Sec. Of State
      INTERFUND MORTGAGE CORP.




The  undersigned  incorporates,  for the  purpose  of  forming a Florida  profit
corporation, hereby adopts the following Articles of Incorporation:

                                     Article I
The name of the corporation is:
      INTERFUND MORTGAGE CORP.


                                     Article II
 The principal place of business address:
      900 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY
      SUITE 410
      BOCA RATON. FL. PL 33432

 The mailing address of the corporation is:
      900 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY
      SUITE 410
      BOCA RATON, FL. FL 33432

                                     Article III
 The purpose for which this corporation is organized is:
      ANY AND ALL LAWFUL BUSINESS.

      Article IV
 The number of shares the corporation is authorized to issue is: 1,000

                                     Article V
The name and Florida street address of the registered agent is:
      ASHLEY B BLOOM
      900 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY
      SUITE 410
      BOCA RATON, FL.   33432


<PAGE>


I certify that I am familiar with and accept the responsibilities of
                                                                   P03000111362
registered agent.                                               FILED
                                                                October 08,2003
                                                                Sec. Of State
 Registered Agent Signature:   ASHLEY BLOOM

                                     Article VI
 The name and address of the incorporator is:
      ELIZABETH BRANDON-BROWN
      900 N. FEDERAL
      HIGHWAY SUITE 410
      BOCA RATON, FL 33432

 Incorporator Signature:   ELIZABETH BRANDON-BROWN
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 09-20326 

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds 

CLARENCE HENRY COHEN (D-9), 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [609] 

On February 17, 2022, the Court entered an order denying Defendant Clarence 

Henry Cohen’s third motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

after finding there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons that would warrant a 

sentence reduction in this case. (ECF No. 608.) The matter is now before the Court on 

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of that order. (ECF No. 609.) 

Defendant relies in large part on the same arguments he previously made and this 

Court rejected—some of which more than once. But motions for reconsideration “are not 

the proper vehicle to relitigate issues previously considered.” See Nagle Indus., Inc. v. 

Ford Motor Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 255 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (internal quotations and citation 

omitted). Thus, the Court need not readdress Defendant’s arguments regarding 

Amendment 790 to the sentencing guidelines, the pandemic, his health, his rehabilitation, 

and an alleged sentencing disparity. 

Defendant also asserts that the Court erred by relying on the fact that he was 

released from prison to home confinement a few months ago pursuant to the CARES Act. 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 610, PageID.2814 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 2
2

He cites to another case in which a defendant similarly moved for a sentence reduction 

despite having been released under the CARES Act due to the threat of being returned 

to prison once the pandemic is over. (See United States v. Patel, E.D. Mich. No. 2:11-cr20468.) But there the court found this argument premature and the issue not ripe for 

review. (Id. at ECF No. 1717.) Thus, that case is of no avail to Defendant and does not 

establish any error in the Court’s analysis. The possibility that Defendant may be returned 

to prison remains speculative at this time and does not constitute an extraordinary and 

compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

 Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 29, 2022 

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

on March 29, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Lisa Bartlett 

 Case Manager 

Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 610, PageID.2815 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 2
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 534

To provide for the minting and circulation of one dollar coins, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mr. KOLBE (for himself, Mr. TORRES, Mr. BLUTE, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To provide for the minting and circulation of one dollar

coins, 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. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States One

5 Dollar Coin Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. ONE DOLLAR COINS.

7 (a) COLOR AND CONTENT.—Section 5112(b) of title

8 31, United States Code, is amended—

9 (1) in the 1st sentence, by striking ‘‘dollar,’’;

10 and
2

•HR 534 IH

1 (2) by inserting after the 4th sentence, the fol2 lowing new sentence: ‘‘The dollar coin shall be gold3 en in color, have a distinctive edge, have tactile and

4 visual features that make the denomination of the

5 coin readily discernible, be minted and fabricated in

6 the United States, and have similar metallic,

7 anticounterfeiting properties as United States clad

8 coinage in circulation on the date of the enactment

9 of the United States One Dollar Coin Act of 1995.’’.

10 (b) DESIGN OF COIN BY SECRETARY.—Section

11 5112(d)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended

12 by striking the 5th and 6th sentences and inserting the

13 following new sentence: ‘‘The Secretary of the Treasury

14 shall select appropriate designs for the reverse and obverse

15 sides of the dollar.’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Not later than 18 months

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

18 the Treasury shall place into circulation 1 dollar coins au19 thorized under subsection (a)(1) of section 5112 of title

20 31, United States Code, which comply with the require21 ments of subsections (b) and (d)(1) of such section 5112

22 (as amended by subsections (a) and (b) of this section).

23 The Secretary may include such coins in any numismatic

24 set produced by the United States Mint before the date

25 the coins are placed in circulation.
3

•HR 534 IH

1 SEC. 3. CEASING ISSUANCE OF ONE DOLLAR NOTES.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—After the date that coins de3 scribed in section 2(c) are first placed in circulation, no

4 Federal reserve bank may order or place into circulation

5 any $1 Federal Reserve note.

6 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary of the Treasury

7 shall produce only such Federal Reserve notes of 1 dollar

8 denomination as the Board of Governors of the Federal

9 Reserve System orders from time to time to meet the

10 needs of collectors of that denomination. Such notes shall

11 be issued by 1 or more Federal reserve banks in accord12 ance with section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act and sold

13 by the Secretary, in whole or in part, under procedures

14 prescribed by the Secretary.

Æ
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201800068

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

JARED S. JOHANSEN

Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Libretto, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft 

Wing, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Cherry Point, NC.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel 

Edward J. Danielson, USMC.

For Appellant: Commander Mark Takla, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 31 May 2018

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, SAYEGH, and STINSON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

 For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Fletcher, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 66-14M. (Abstract of Decision.)

Third District.

September 12, 1966.

Frank W. Curran and Paul F. Davidson, of Kankakee, for appellant; Edward P. Drolet, State’s Attorney, of Kankakee, for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE ALLOY. Not to be published in full.
#### John J. Tierney, Respondent, *v.*Helvetia-Swiss Fire Insurance Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Central Trust Company of New York, Defendant.

Second Department,

December 30, 1908.

Practice — pleading— motion to strike out irrelevant matter.

On a motion under section 54S of the Code of Civil Procedure to strike out irrele vant, redundant and scandalous matter contained in a pleading the entire cause of action or defense cannot be stricken out, but only the irrelevant matter.

The sufficiency of matter pleaded as a defense cannot be tested in the motion under said section.

Appeal by the defendant, the Helvetia-Swiss Fire Insurance Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the oifiee of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 13tli day of August, 1908, striking out as irrelevant an entire defense contained in the said defendant’s answer.

*Frederick*B. *Campbell [Charles M. Turell w*ith him on the brief], for the appellant.

*Royall Victor,*for the respondent.

Miller, J.:

Section 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the striking out of “irrelevant, redundant, or scandalous matter, contained in a pleading.” That section does not authorize the striking out of-an entire cause of action or defense, but only of irrelevant, redundant or scandalous matter contained therein! The sufficiency of the matter pleaded as a defense cannot thus be tested. An entire *695defense, though insufficient, cannot be stricken out as irrelevant. *(Hanson Co.*v. Collier, 119 App. Div. 794; *Cardeza*v. Osborn, 32 Misc. Rep. 46; affd., 54 App. Div. 626; *Stroock Plush Co.*v. *Talcott,*129 id. 14.)

It is conceded that the defendant offered no objection to the striking out of the 8tli paragraph, but the appeal is taken from the entire order. It should, therefore, be modified so as to provide that only the 8th paragraph of the answer be stricken out, and as thus modified affirmed, with costs of this appeal.

Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and ¡Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order modified in accordance with the opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY

BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE ASPEN G3 TRUST, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST,

Respondent

v.

LANA L. BOGO, AND RONDA L. BOGO,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 31 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of June, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Levcor International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Pramila Devi Shaheed, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
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.


Dated:  November  13, 2007
        ------------------


By: /s/ Pramila Devi Shaheed
    ---------------------------------
    Pramila Devi Shaheed
    Chief Financial Officer



                                       47
Exhibit 32.1  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 TJS Wood Flooring, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brandi Iannelli, Chief Executive and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Brandi Iannelli Brandi Iannelli Title: President and Chief Financial Officer   October 8, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERRY BUTLER, 

Plaintiffs, Case No. 09-cv-13652 

 Hon. George Caram Steeh 

vs. Mag. Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

CITY OF ECORSE, a municipal corporation, 

POLICE OFFICER CRAIG CIESZKOWSKI, 

And POLICE OFFICER FREDDY HUGES, 

Individually and in their official capacity, 

Jointly and severally, 

Defendants. 

________________________________________________________________________/ 

Joel B. Sklar (P38338) 

Attorney for Plaintiff

1116 Ford Building 

615 Girswold 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 963-4529 

Rebecca H. Filiatraut (46443) 

Secrest, Wardle 

Attorneys for Defendants 

30903 Northwestern Highway 

Farmington Hills, MI 48334 

(248) 851-9500 

rfiliatratut@secrestwardle.com

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 The parties have expressed their desire to enter into a Consent Judgment in this matter. 

 Accordingly, it is herby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff, Terry Butler, 

shall recover from the Defendants, The City of Ecorse, Police Officer Craig Czieszkowski and 

Police Officer Freddy Hugley, the sum of $60,000.00. 

 It is hereby further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants shall undertake all steps 

necessary to issue judgment bonds or other bonds to finance and pay the judgment in their required 

frame which funds shall be repaid by one or more judgment millage levies by the Defendants over 

the period of years provided by law in amounts necessary to fully fund payment of said judgment 

2:09-cv-13652-GCS-DAS Doc # 19 Filed 03/15/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 70
bonds pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of MCL 600.6093 and MCL 600.6097, or 

by the issuance of other bonds according to law, and all other applicable statutes and laws of the 

State of Michigan. 

 It is hereby further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants shall undertake all 

actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Judgment within a reasonable time period. 

 It is hereby further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of 

this matter. 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 15, 2011 

Approved as to Form: 

_/s/Joel Sklar (w/consent)________ 

Joel B. Sklar (P38338) 

Attorney for Plaintiff

1116 Ford Building 

615 Girswold 

Detroit, MI 48226 

_/s/Rebecca H. Filiatraut___________ 

Rebecca H. Filiatraut (46443) 

Secrest, Wardle 

Attorney for Defendants 

 (248) 851-9500 

2:09-cv-13652-GCS-DAS Doc # 19 Filed 03/15/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 71
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46625-46626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18365]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments

[[Page 46626]]

must be received not later than August 25, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, 
Director, Regional and Community Bank Group) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Russell Goldsmith, individually, and as part of a family group, 
including the Bram & Elaine Goldsmith Family Trust, the Elaine 
Goldsmith Revocable Trust, the Bruce Leigh Goldsmith Revocable Trust, 
the Goldsmith Family Partnership, the Goldsmith Family Foundation, and 
other related family trusts, partnerships, and foundations, all of Los 
Angeles, California, to retain control and to acquire additional voting 
shares of City National Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain 
control and acquire additional voting shares of City National Bank, 
both of Beverly Hills, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 5, 
2008.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-18365 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 23.1











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-142712 and Registration Statement No. 333-55836 on Forms S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-116972, as amended, on Form S-3, of our reports dated December 14, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of The Pantry, Inc. (which report on the consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of the updated provisions of Accounting Standards Codification section “Debt with Conversion and Other Options”), and the effectiveness of The Pantry, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Pantry, Inc., for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.




/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP






Charlotte, North Carolina






December 14, 2010
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.(the “Companies”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2005  (the “Report”), which this certificationaccompanies, I, Richard Ginsburg, in my capacity as President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Companies, certify that to the best of my knowledgethe Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Companies.

 
| Date: April 10, 2006 |   | /s/     Richard Ginsburg                                                           |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Richard Ginsburg                                                                                       |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer, Protection  One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes– Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies as part ofthe Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 orany other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
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 March  31, 2011 (the Report), I, Chunxiang Li, 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.  Date:  May 16, 2011 /s/ Chunxiang Li, Chief Financial Officer
#### Ollie Williams v. State

No. 25528.

November 28, 1951.

Hon. A. A. Payne, Judge Presiding.

*James L. Cutcher,*Childress, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area and assessed a fine of $500.00.

The evidence amply sustains the conviction. The appellant did not testify and offered no evidence to contradict that presented by the state. The appeal presents only one question by which reversal is sought.

The county attorney, in arguing the case to the jury, said: “If Ollie did not sell the whiskey he would have gotten on this stand and told you that he didn’t sell it.” Objection was timely made and the court instructed the jury not to consider the statement.

The argument was clearly in violation of Art. 710, Code of Criminal Procedure, and it has frequently been held that the instruction to not consider such statement cannot cure the error. See annotations under Footnote 41, page 1026, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

For the error in the argument, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.