alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131890 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131890 COA: 269679 Wayne CC: 87-002623 WILLIE MERRIWEATHER, a/k/a WILLIAM MERRIWEATHER Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 27, 2006 order 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.

d1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 533 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to consider certain transactions 

related to precious metals for purposes of identifying jurisdictions of 

primary money laundering concern, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to consider certain 

transactions related to precious metals for purposes of 

identifying jurisdictions of primary money laundering 

concern, 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. CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS 

4 INVOLVING PRECIOUS METALS FOR PUR5 POSES OF IDENTIFYING JURISDICTIONS OF 

6 PRIMARY MONEY LAUNDERING CONCERN. 

7 Section 5318A(c)(2) of title 31, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 533 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A)— 

2 (A) by redesignating clauses (iii) through 

3 (vii) as clauses (iv) through (viii), respectively; 

4 and 

5 (B) by inserting after clause (ii) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(iii) the extent to which the jurisdic8 tion or financial institutions operating in 

9 that jurisdiction facilitate transactions that 

10 are related to precious metals and are sub11 ject to being blocked pursuant to sanctions 

12 imposed by the United States under any 

13 statute or Executive order;’’; and 

14 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

15 (A) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) 

16 as clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively; and 

17 (B) by inserting after clause (i) the fol18 lowing: 

19 ‘‘(iv) the extent to which such finan20 cial institutions, transactions, or types of 

21 accounts are used to facilitate transactions 

22 that are related to precious metals and are 

23 subject to being blocked pursuant to sancVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:12 Feb 22, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S533.IS S533

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 533 IS

1 tions imposed by the United States under 

2 any statute or Executive order;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### § 351.6 Official number.

The Administrator will assign a certified technical animal fat plant number to each plant granted service. Such number shall be preceded by the letter “C” and be used to identify all certified technical animal fat prepared or stored by the plant.
§ 121.18 Inspections. ( a ) Without prior notification, APHIS must be allowed to inspect any site at which activities regulated under this part are conducted and must be allowed to inspect and copy any records relating to the activities covered by this part.
( b ) Prior to issuing a certificate of registration to an individual or entity, APHIS may inspect and evaluate the premises and records to ensure compliance with this part.
# C_2007129EN.01001901.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/19

---

Action brought on 2 April 2007 — MarketTools v OHIM — Optimus-Telecomunicações (ZOOMERANG)

(Case T-105/07)

(2007/C 129/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MarketTools, Inc. (San Francisco, United-States) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and A. González Hähnlein, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA (Maia, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 25 January 2007 (Appeal No R 253/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 25 January 2007 (Appeal No R 253/2006-2);

| — | order Optimus-Telecomunicações S.A. to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Optimus-Telecomunicações S.A. to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZOOMERANG ’for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — application No 1 603 950

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Optimus-Telecomunicações, SA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national word and figurative marks ‘BOOMERANG ’for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38 and 42

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the similarity of the goods and services and the trade marks in question.

Pleas in law:

---
### §1381. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section, Pub. L. 89–563, §1, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 718, provided congressional declaration of purpose of this chapter. See section 30101 of Title 49, Transportation.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 89–563, title I, §101, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 718, provided that Pub. L. 89–563 could be cited as the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966", prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379.
# C_2010080EN.01004302.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/43

---

Appeal brought on 3 February 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-44/10 P)

2010/C 80/69

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

| — | Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever.

| — | Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

| — | In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 25 November 2009. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded an action brought against the Commission’s refusal to assume responsibility for 100 % of the appellant’s medical expenses.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle that reasons must be given for a decision of an institution of the European Union, the concept of additional reasoning for a decision and the legal principles relating to the taking and assessment of evidence.

The appellant also alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the concepts of a challengeable act and a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision.

---
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30020

BERNICE LOUISE SPENCER, Individually

and on behalf of Shadow Spencer and Raevyn Spencer,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

vs.

JACK STATON, Individually and in his official

capacity; DEWAYNE BRUMLEY, Individually and in his

official capacity; GUFFEY LYNN PATTISON, Individually

and in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is granted

in part as follows:

The portion of the panel opinion discussing appellants’

state law claims for false arrest and imprisonment is withdrawn,

and these claims will be remanded to the district court for

consideration in the first instance.
2

The second sentence of the opinion is amended to conform

with this disposition.

The concluding paragraph of the opinion is also amended

to state: 

For these reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s

summary judgment for Detectives Staton and Brumley on the Malley

claim and on the state law false arrest and imprisonment claims,

AFFIRM for Sheriff Pattison and REMAND for further proceedings. We

express no opinion on whether, at trial, Spencer or the detectives

will prevail in their respective contentions. 

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
(67 South. 175)

No. 20986.

#### STATE v. DUPLECHAIN et al.

(Jan. 11, 1915.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

1. Criminal Law @=>1166 — Several Defendants — Severance—Prejudice.

The overruling of motion for a severance by several defendants, on the ground that their codefendant had made a confession implicating them in the commission of the offense charged, worked no prejudice to the movers, when on the trial no such confession was offered in evidence.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3100-3102, 3107-3113; Dec. Dig. @=>11G6.]

2. Criminal Law @=>622 — Joint Defendants —Severance.

The mere fact that one defendant is seeking to escape by throwing the blame upon another is not sufficient to require a severance.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1380-1383,1385, 1386,1388-1390; Dec. Dig. @=>622.]

3. Criminal Law @=>508 — "Witnesses—Persons Accused of Crime — Codefendant— Disqualification.

A codefendant, though being jointly tried, is in no wise disqualified from testifying. Section 2, Act No. 185 of 1902, p. 355.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1099-1123; Dee. Dig. @=>508.]

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Allen; Alfred M. Barbe, Judge.

Pete Duplechain and two others were convicted of stealing a cow, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

Williams & Williams, of Lake Charles, for appellants. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and T. A. Edwards, Dist. Atty., of Lake Charles (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

LAND, J.

[1] The four defendants were charged on information with 'the offense of stealing a certain cow. Three of the defendants were found guilty as charged, and the fourth was acquitted. Duplechain and Ryder have appealed. ■ ■

It appears from the record that Duple-chain, Davide, and Ryder moved for a severance from Paul Bellou, on the following grounds: That they had been credibly informed that their said codefendant had made a confession of guilt, which would implicate them in the commission of the offense charged in the information; and that their defense was that the said Bellou was the thief, if the cow had been stolen as charged.

It appears from the per curiam of the court that “no confession was offered”; that Bellou testified that he had bought the meat stolen from Duplechain and Ryder, when asked where he had gotten the stolen meat; that the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony in so far as Duplechain and Ryder were concerned; that Duplechain and Ryder said they had bought the meat from Bellou; and that the evidence convinced the court *391they all had stolen the cow and sought to escape by blaming one another.

As no confession was offered, the appellants were not prejudiced by the overruling of their motion for a severance.

[2, 3] Bellou, though being “jointly tried,” was in no wise disqualified from testifying. Section 2, Act No. 185 of 1902, p. 355. See State v. Johnson, 116 La. 865, *41*South. 119.

> “The mere fact that one defendant is seeking to escape by throwing the blame upon the other is not sufficient to require a severance.” Id.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0155

IN THE MATTER OF:

C.L.,

A Youth.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 8 2021

01/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0155
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), I,Mike Heather, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| August 16,  2010 | **/**s**/**MIKE HEATHER     |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| ** **            | **Mike Heather**            |
| ** **            | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Kimberly A. Springsteen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund I (theregistrant);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     **Date:**April 2, 2007 /s/ Kimberly A. Springsteen Kimberly A. Springsteen    Chief Financial Officer  
25
# C_2007010EN.01000102.xml

| 16.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4464 — Goldman Sachs/Cerberus/Harpen)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 10/02)

On 15 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4464. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4464. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
§ 1304.202 General sediment and erosion control provisions. ( a ) During construction activities, TVA shall require that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures be utilized to prevent pollution of the waters of the reservoir.
( b ) All material which accumulates behind sediment control structures must be removed from TVA land and placed at an upland site above the 100-year floodplain elevation or the Flood Risk Profile Elevation (whichever is applicable).
( c ) Disturbed sites must be promptly stabilized with seeding, vegetative planting, erosion control netting, and/or mulch material.
### §1141c. Restriction, abandonment, cancellation, or expiration of a basic application or basic registration

With respect to an international application transmitted to the International Bureau under section 1141b of this title, the Director shall notify the International Bureau whenever the basic application or basic registration which is the basis for the international application has been restricted, abandoned, or canceled, or has expired, with respect to some or all of the goods and services listed in the international registration—

(1) within 5 years after the international registration date; or

(2) more than 5 years after the international registration date if the restriction, abandonment, or cancellation of the basic application or basic registration resulted from an action that began before the end of that 5-year period.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title XII, §63, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13402, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1915.)
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 23.2


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 333-23313) pertaining to the Canmax Inc. Stock Option Plan and 
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-33523) pertaining to 863,364 
shares of Canmax, Inc. common stock, of our report dated December 18, 1997, 
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Canmax Inc. included 
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 31, 1998.


                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


                                       Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
January 29, 1999
#### § 3.128 Space requirements.

Enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns.