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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

NADINE HEMY and NANCY CONNER, :

individually and on behalf of themselves :

and all others similarly situated, : Civil Action No.: 11-888 (FLW)

:

Plaintiffs, : ORDER

: 

v. :

:

PERDUE FARMS, INC., ABC :

CORPORATIONS 1 through 10, AND :

JOHN DOES 1-10, :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

This matter having been opened to the Court by way of motion of Liza Walsh, Esq., counsel

for Defendant Perdue Farms, Inc. (“Perdue”), moving to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, to strike certain of Plaintiffs’ allegations,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); it further appearing that Mark Silver, Esq., counsel for Animal

Welfare Institute (“AWI”), moved to intervene and stay the instant matter; it appearing that the Court

considered the parties’ respective moving, opposition, and reply papers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

78; and for good cause shown:

It is on this 30th day of November, 2011,

ORDERED that the Defendant Perdue’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 9) is hereby

GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that AWI’s motion to intervene and stay (Docket Entry No. 18) is hereby

DENIED; and it is further

Case 3:11-cv-00888-MAS-LHG Document 30 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 693
ORDERED that, as to all counts of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ claims are

limited to the Harvestland chicken products; and it is further

ORDERED that all claims relating to Perdue’s use of the “Raised Cage Free” label are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment (Count IV) claim is also DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that the remaining counts of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint—the New Jersey

Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) claim (Count I), common law fraud claim (Count II), negligent

misrepresentation claim (Count III), and breach of express warranty claim (Count V)—are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, in

accordance with the dictates of the Opinion, within 30 days. 

/s/ Freda L. Wolfson 

 Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. 

Case 3:11-cv-00888-MAS-LHG Document 30 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 694
# 2017
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4810** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DONALD STANTON SHEALEY, a/k/a Face, a/k/a Diddy, a/k/a Face Diddy, a/k/a The City , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00282

- F

- 2 )

Submitted : February 10 , 2011 Decided: February 17, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donald Stanton Shealey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE U NITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Stanton Shealey appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for return of property. We have revie wed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shealey , No. 5:08

- cr - 00282

- F

- 2 (E.D.N.C. July 15, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AMRO HEGAB, individually and on behalf 

of all other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01206 

(CCC)(JAD)

NOTICE OF MOTION

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF 

FEES AND COSTS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ENHANCEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 5, 2015 at 11:00 am before the 

Honorable Claire Cecchi, or whomever may be sitting in her stead, in the United 

States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage, Martin 

Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Room 4015 Newark, 

New Jersey 07101, the undersigned counsel will more this Court pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 54 for an award attorneys’ fees and 

expenses to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and an enhancement payment to the named 

Plaintiff. 

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 52 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 556
2

Plaintiff will rely on the supporting memorandum and declaration of Seth R. 

Lesser submitted in support of this motion and all prior proceedings in this action. 

A proposed order accompanies this motion.

Dated: January 29, 2015 Respectfully Submitted By: 

__/s/ Seth Lesser_________________

Seth Lesser 

Fran Rudich

Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP

Two International Drive, Suite 350

Rye Brook, NY 10573

Marc Hepworth

David A. Roth

Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC

192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802

New York, New York 10016

Mayra V. Tarantino

Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC

Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201

Newark, NJ 07102

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND 

THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 52 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 557
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this date, I caused copies of 

the following documents to be served on all parties via electronic case filing: 

Notice of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for An Award of Fees and Costs and Class 

Representative Enhancement, Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Unopposed 

Motion for An Award of Fees and Costs and Class Representative Enhancement, 

the Declaration of Seth R Lesser and Proposed Order.

/s/ Seth R. Lesser

Dated: January 29, 2015 Seth R. Lesser

Case 2:11-cv-01206-CCC-JAD Document 52 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 558
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 3, 2013

t0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147072-3

DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147072-3

COA: 300936, 304547

Ingham CC: 10-000588-CZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN, SHERIFF’S 

COORDINATING AND TRAINING COUNCIL,

MICHIGAN SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION

EDUCATIONAL SERVICE, d/b/a MICHIGAN

SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, TERRENCE

JUNGEL, SHERIFF’S COORDINATING AND

TRAINING COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY, MISSAUKEE COUNTY

SHERIFF, GENESEE COUNTY SHERIFF,

JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF, CLINTON

COUNTY SHERIFF, ALLEGAN COUNTY

SHERIFF, MACOMB COUNTY SHERIFF, ST.

JOSEPH COUNTY SHERIFF and HOUGHTON

COUNTY SHERIFF,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Leslie Eugene BUTTERFIELD, Plaintiff, v. Roger W. CRIST et al., Defendants. Robert Eugene WYMAN, Plaintiff, v. Roger W. CRIST et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 69-C-86, 69-C-87.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

July 27, 1971.

Maurice J. McSweeney, Benn S. Di-Pasquale, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs.

Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., by Sverre O. Tinglum, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for defendants.

REYNOLDS, Chief Judge.

DECISION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL

The defendants have moved for a trial by jury in these two actions brought by two inmates of the Wisconsin State Prison against certain employees of the prison for redress of certain alleged violations of their civil rights.

Plaintiffs originally named John C. Burke, Harvey Winans, and Edward Shaw as defendants. None of the parties within ten days of the original pleadings in each action requested a jury trial. Therefore a jury was waived. Rule 38(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 8, 1970, it was stipulated by the parties and ordered by the court that defendant John C. Burke be dismissed as a party defendant from both actions and that Roger W. Crist be joined as a defendant. An amended complaint was accordingly served and filed. Roger W. Crist, joined *490by the two remaining defendants, thereupon requested a jury trial which is now opposed by the plaintiffs.

As I read the pleadings, in the legal world the defendant in these actions is Roger W. Crist and not the State of Wisconsin.* In light of the Eleventh Amendment, were this otherwise the propriety of this action would, of course, be open to serious doubt. I therefore find it difficult to accept plaintiffs’ contention that under Rule 38(d) Mr. Crist has waived a jury, when Mr. Crist had no standing to request a jury when this action was initially commenced and when Mr. Crist as soon as he acquired proper standing did in fact make such a request. Accordingly, Rule 38(a) compels me to grant Mr. Crist’s request.

As regards defendants Winans and Shaw, I agree with plaintiff that no new issues have been introduced by the amended complaint, and thus under Rule 38(d) their jury waiver still stands. However, I feel that given the virtually identical factual issues to be decided as between plaintiffs and defendant Crist and plaintiffs and defendants Winans and Shaw, and given the need for judicial efficiency, that in the exercise of discretion under Rule 39(b) their belated request should be granted. Cf. Christenson v. Diversified Builders Inc., 331 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1964); McKnight v. Mutual Broadcasting System, 14 F.R.D. 174 (S.D.N.Y.1953); Spiro v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 F.R.D. 351 (S.D.N.Y.1942).

It is therefore ordered that the requests of defendants Christ, Winans, and Shaw for a consolidated jury trial be and they hereby are granted.

*

 In the real world the State of Wisconsin defends its employees and pays any judgment which might be entered against them. § 14.53(12) and § 270.58, Wisconsin Statutes (1969).
Case 2:11-cr-00036-SDW Document 16 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cr-00036-SDW Document 16 Filed 04/12/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 29
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Larry W. Trapp, state and attest that:

     (1) I am the Treasurer of Energy Producers, Inc. (the "issuer").

     (2) Accompanying this certification is the Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2001, 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  Exchange  Act of 1934  (the  "Exchange  Act"),  which  contains
financial statements.

     (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 based on my
knowledge:

     o the periodic report  containing the financial  statements  fully complies
     with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

     o the information  contained in the periodic repor fairly presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     issuer for the periods presented therein.


/s/ Larry W. Trapp
-------------------
Larry W. Trapp
Date:  August 23, 2002







<PAGE>
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure control and procedures, or caused such disclosure control
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure control and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
control and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 15, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaCEO, President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
909 A.2d 722

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YUSEF GRESHAM, A/K/A YASIN GRESHAM, YAKEEM GRENSHAW, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

October 19, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited solely to the sentencing issue raised by defendant, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of *State v. Natale,*184 *N.J.*458, 878 A.2d 724 (2005).
**Exhibit 32**

 

#### **Section 1350 Certification**

#### ** **

The undersignedhereby certify that, to their knowledge, **(i) **the Form 10-Qfiled by Yadkin Valley Financial Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the quarterended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and **(ii) **theinformation contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the datesand for the periods presented therein.

 

 
|                              | **Yadkin Valley Financial  Corporation** |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                              |                                     |   |
| Date:  November 4, 2009 | By:                                      | /s/ William A. Long |
|                              |                                     | William A. Long |
|                              |                                     | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                              |                                     |   |
|                              |                                     |   |
|                              | By:                                      | /s/ Jan H. Hollar |
|                              |                                     | Jan H. Hollar |
|                              |                                     | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 605 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 47336
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6357

BILLY MOSS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EUGENE NUTH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-225-DKC)

Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Moss, Appellant Pro Se. Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of

probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Moss v. Nuth, No. CA-95-225-DKC (D. Md. Feb.

11, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S.

June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5140 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5140

 To prohibit the importation, manufacture, distribution, or storage of 
    detonable nitrate fertilizers without a license, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2004

 Mr. Hinchey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the importation, manufacture, distribution, or storage of 
    detonable nitrate fertilizers without a license, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ammonium Nitrate Security Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND STORAGE OF 
              DETONABLE NITRATE FERTILIZERS.

    Chapter 40 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence of section 841(d) by striking 
        ``and igniters'' and inserting ``igniters, and detonable 
        nitrate fertilizers'';
            (2) in section 841 by adding at the end the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(t) `Detonable nitrate fertilizers' means detonable 
        mixtures of ammonium nitrate fertilizers, sodium nitrate 
        fertilizers, and potassium nitrate fertilizers.'';
            (3) in section 842(j) by adding at the end the following: 
        ``The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations 
        specifically related to the storage of detonable nitrate 
        fertilizers.'';
            (4) in the second sentence of section 843(a) by striking 
        the period and inserting ``, except that if the only explosive 
        materials for which the applicant is seeking a license or 
        permit are detonable nitrate fertilizers, the applicant shall 
        not be required to pay such fee.'';
            (5) in section 843(b)(6) by striking the semicolon and 
        inserting ``, unless the only explosive materials that the 
        employee is authorized to possess are detonable nitrate 
        fertilizers;'';
            (6) in the first sentence of section 843(h)(1) by striking 
        the period and inserting ``, unless the only explosive 
        materials that the responsible person or employee will be 
        authorized by the employer to possess are detonable nitrate 
        fertilizers.''; and
            (7) in section 844(j) by inserting ``detonable nitrate 
        fertilizers,'' after ``title,''.
                                 <all>
```
James E. Cecchi

Lindsey H. Taylor

Donald E. Ecklund

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

5 Becker Farm Rd.

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

(973) 994-1700

Christopher M. Burke

SCOTT+SCOTT LLP

707 Broadway, Suite 1000

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 233-4565

Joseph P. Guglielmo

SCOTT+SCOTT LLP

500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor

New York, NY 10110

(212) 223-6444

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Class Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE:

NUTELLA MARKETING AND SALES

PRACTICES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-1086(FLW)(DEA)

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: All Counsel via ECF

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on August 6, 2012, or as soon as counsel may be heard,

Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, shall move before the Hon. Douglas Arpert,

U.S.M.J., at the Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street,

Courtroom 6W, Trenton, NJ 08608, to seal the Expert Report of R. Larry Johnson in accordance

with Local Civil Rule 5.3.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, in support of the motion, Plaintiffs rely upon

the annexed Statement in Lieu of Brief.

Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 91 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1828
2

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, a proposed form of Order is attached.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the undersigned consents to disposition of this

motion on the papers in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 78.

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

Counsel for Plaintiff Kaczmarek and Class Counsel

By: /s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

Dated: July 2, 2012

Christopher M. Burke

SCOTT+SCOTT LLP

707 Broadway, Suite 1000

San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 233-4565

Joseph P. Guglielmo

SCOTT+SCOTT LLP

500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor

New York, NY 10110

(212) 223-6444

Counsel for Plaintiff Glover and Class Counsel

Case 3:11-cv-01086-FLW-DEA Document 91 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1829
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lionel ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40416

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Scott Smith, Smith & Smith, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Lionel Anderson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flares,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Anderson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate *319review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.