alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47,191

#### Max Leroy Potts, *Appellant,*v. State of Kansas, *Appellee.*

(520 P. 2d 1259)

Opinion filed April 6, 1974.

*Martin E. Updegraff,*of Wichita, was on the brief for the appellant.

*Vern Miller,*attorney general, *Keith Sanborn,*district attorney, and *Clifford L. Bertholf,*assistant district attorney, were on the brief for the appellee.

Per *Curiam:*

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying postconviction relief.

Appellant Max Leroy Potts was convicted by a jury of the offense of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced under the habitual criminal act. Upon direct appeal his conviction was upheld *(State v. Potts,*205 Kan. 47, 468 P. 2d 78).

Essentially, in his motion for relief under K. S. A. 60-1507 appellant alleges several witnesses against him committed perjury and he was not guilty of the offense charged. The motion stated no facts to support his conclusion and identified no witnesses upon which he relies for proof. The trial court examined the records and files in the case and denied tire motion without requiring appellant’s appearance or the appointment of counsel.

Conclusory allegations alone are insufficient to present a justiciable issue under 60-1507; moreover, this proceeding was never designed to supply a forum in which to retry guilt or innocence of one convicted of crime nor to have a second appeal. The trial court ruled correctly and its judgment is approved.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Edward G. Bartlett, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of .the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding him ineligible to receive benefits effective August 22, 1966 on the ground that he was not totally unemployed (Labor Law, § 522). Claimant, an employee of the National Gypsum Company, became unemployed due to a strike and after the expiration of the statutory suspension period (Labor Law, § 592, subd. 1) filed for benefits. The board has ruled him ineligible in that he was not totally unemployed within the meaning of section 522 of the Labor Law because of his ownership and operation of a farm on which he resided. The determination of total unemployment is factual and thus within the sole province of the board if supported by substantial evidence (e.g., *Matter of Carasso*[Catherwood], 23 A D 2d 935). On the instant record the board could properly find that in view of claimant’s farm activities he was self-employed and therefore not totally unemployed *(Matter of Jordal*[Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 745; *Matter of Soroka*[Catherwood], 24 A D 2d 920). Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00653

- CV

IN RE Allen J. JONES

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sit ting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice

On October 19, 2015

, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. A separate motion for emergency relief was filed on October 22, 2015. The c ourt has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the p etition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on October 26, 2015

.

_________________________________ Pa tricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of October, 2015

.

________________________________ ___ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014

- CI

- 16674, styled Cearth Faire v. FMP SA Management Group, LLC d/b/a Food Management Partner s, LLC; ALL Jones, LLC; Allen J. Jones, Indiv idually; and Peter Donbavand, Individually , pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County , Texas, the Honorable Richard Price presiding.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust.
 /s/ John MarshallJohn MarshallChief Executive Officer of Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust/s/ Stephen AdamsStephen AdamsChief Financial Officer of  Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.97-40372

Summary Calendar

BANORO GARRETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:94-CV-172)

September 29, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132142 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132142 

 COA: 268032 

Muskegon CC: 90-031839-FC

WILLIAM DONNELL SAIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARS L. GORE,

Plaintiff, 

v. 4:96cv149-WS

HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 10)

docketed September 21, 2005. The magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiff’s

motion for relief from judgment be denied. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the

report and recommendation.

The court having reviewed the record, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 10) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order. 

2. The plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (doc. 9) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this October 17, 2005.

Case 4:96-cv-00149-WS-WCS Document 11 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:96cv149-WS

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:96-cv-00149-WS-WCS Document 11 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2006-0982.

#### Watson v. Collins.

Noble App. No. 05NO327. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Noble County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000756767
<NAME>                        TELS Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.000
<CASH>                                         101,211
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  834,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                   108,279
<INVENTORY>                                    505,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,681,335
<PP&E>                                         2,383,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,703,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,663,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,238,471
<BONDS>                                        385,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       77,835
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,961,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,663,016
<SALES>                                        3,765,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,765,184
<CGS>                                          1,928,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,217,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (79,889)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             94,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (552,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (112,746)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (439,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (439,592)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.11)

        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.06

                             EQK REALTY INVESTORS I

                             Incumbency Certificate


         The undersigned Secretary of EQK Realty Investors I, a Massachusetts
business trust (the "Trust") does hereby certify that the following persons are
duly elected officers of the Trust, Mr. Henry having been elected at the Annual
Meeting of the Trustees on May 29, 1996, Mr. Hatcher having been elected at a
special meeting of the Trustees held January 15, 1999, and Ms. Griffin having
been elected at the meeting of the Board of Trustees of August 19, 1998, to
serve until the next Annual Meeting of the Trustees or until such time as their
successors are duly elected and qualified:

<TABLE>

         <S>                                <C>
         NAME:                              TITLE:

         Samuel F. Hatcher                  President

         Donald R. Henry                    Vice President

         Pamela P. Griffin                  Secretary
</TABLE>

         The undersigned Secretary further certifies that there have been no
amendments or modifications to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust of
EQK Realty Investors I, (the "Declaration") as executed as of February 27, 1985
and amended as of March 5, 1986, nor to the Trustees' regulations of EQK Realty
Investors I as adopted as of October 11, 1984 and amended on June 3, 1985 and
September 16, 1986; however, pursuant to section 5.1 of the Declaration, the
life of the Trust has been extended to March 2001 by a shareholder vote at a
Special Meeting of Shareholders on February 23, 1999.

         The undersigned Secretary further certifies that no formal resolution
of the Trustees is required for the extension of the Trust's loan with PNC
Bank, National Association, and that the officers of the Trust have the full
authority to execute any and all documents in connection with the extension of
such loan.

         This 15th day of June, 1999.
                                                 /s/ PAMELA P. GRIFFIN
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                 Pamela P. Griffin, Secretary
§ 400.309 Requests for reconsideration. ( a ) Any person to be assigned a nonstandard classification under this subpart will be notified of and allowed not less that 30 days from the date notice is received to request reconsideration before the nonstandard classification becomes effective. The request will be considered to have been made when received, in writing, by the Corporation.
( b ) Upon receipt of a timely request for reconsideration from the person to whom the classification will be assigned, the Corporation will: ( 1 ) Review all information supplied by, and respond to all questions raised by the individual, or
( 2 ) In the absence of information and questions, review insurance experience and determinations for compliance with this subpart and report review results to the individual requesting reconsideration.
( c ) Upon review of a request for reconsideration, the classification to be assigned will be corrected for: ( 1 ) Errors and omissions in insurance experience;
( 2 ) Incorrect calculations under procedures in this subpart, and
( 3 ) Typographical errors.
( d ) If the review finds no cause for change, the classification will be assigned and placed on file in the actuarial tables for the county.
( e ) Any person not satisfied by a determination of the Corporation upon reconsideration may further appeal under the provisions of 7 CFR part 11.
[55 FR 32595, Aug. 10, 1990, as amended at 62 FR 22877, Apr. 28, 1997]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLIE BURKE,

JENNY HANSSON,

d/b/a CHERRY PEPPERS,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 5:03cv182-MCR/WCS

CHARLES E. COOKE,

G. EDWARD COOKE,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Plaintiffs and Defendants have filed a motion for stipulated dismissal of the

claims against Defendant William D. Glaus. Docs. 79, 81. Construed as a notice of

stipulated dismissal, filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), it is accepted and Defendant

Glaus is dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs have also filed a more definite statement. 

Doc. 82.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The parties' stipulated dismissal of the claims against Defendant William D.

Glaus is accepted. Docs. 79, 81.

Case 5:03-cv-00182-RS-WCS Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:05cv42-RH/WCS

2. Defendant Glaus' motion for judgment on the pleadings, doc. 77, is DENIED

as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED on April 18, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00182-RS-WCS Document 83 Filed 04/18/05 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136299 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y GAYNELL MCINTYRE, Personal Representative Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. of the Estate of LORE NE PENDLEY, Deceased, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices

v SC: 136299 COA: 274462 Bay CC: 04-003784-NH KOCHUNNIK MOHAN, MD, Defendant-Appellant,

and

SUBBA CHAVALI, MD, Defendant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 13, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

1215 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.

December 30, 2008

Clerk
§ 3565.211 Interest credit. ( a ) *Limitation.* For at least 20 percent of the loans made during each fiscal year, the Agency will provide assistance in the form of interest credit, to the extent necessary to reduce the agreed-upon rate of interest to the AFR as such term is used in section 42(I)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 7805, § 1.42-1T.
( b ) *Selection criteria.* The Agency will select projects to receive interest credits using any of such criteria as the Agency may establish for priority projects as contained in subpart A of this part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0156

__________________________________________________________________

CITY OF GREAT FALLS,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

HANNAH ROSE KUNTZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

__________________________________________________________________

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

without objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

of time to and including June 21, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 24 2023

05/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0156
2006-0489.

#### Reagans v. Mountainhigh Coach Works, Inc.

Miami App. No. 05CA12, 2006-Ohio-423.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            3499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       48
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3782
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              123
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3782
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   124
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (282)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
23.501 Applicability.       This subpart applies to contracts, including contracts with 8(a) contractors under FAR subpart  19.8 and modifications that require a justification and approval (see subpart  6.3), except contracts-                                       (a) At or below the simplified acquisition threshold; however, the requirements of this subpart apply to all contracts of any value awarded to an individual;                                          (b) For the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services (see part  12);                                          (c) Performed outside the United States and its outlying areas or any part of a contract performed outside the United States and its outlying areas;                                          (d) By law enforcement agencies, if the head of the law enforcement agency or designee involved determines that application of this subpart would be inappropriate in connection with the law enforcement agency’s undercover operations; or                                          (e) Where application would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or with the laws and regulations of a foreign country.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 23.5 - Drug-Free Workplace
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0221

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GARY WAYNE TEMPLE, JR., 

Defendant and Appellant.

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 November 19, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2021

10/14/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0221
Exhibit 23. Business Sector Data

Business Sector Data for the years ended August 31:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Entertainment        Education         E-commerce           Total
                                    -------------        ---------         ----------           -----

1999(Canadian dollars):
-----------------------
<S>                                 <C>                <C>               <C>                <C>
Total revenues                      Cdn$7,631,312      Cdn$4,729,906     Cdn$1,059,424      Cdn$13,420,642
Operating income (loss)                  (460,449)          (293,046)         (112,778)           (866,273)
Net earnings (loss)                      (610,449)          (293,046)          (68,002)           (971,497)

Total assets                        Cdn$7,156,600      Cdn$5,437,204     Cdn$2,208,217      Cdn$14,802,021
Current liabilities                       879,365            657,058           335,698           1,872,121
Total liabilities                       2,002,590            755,090         1,251,574           4,009,254

1998(Canadian dollars):
-----------------------

Total revenues                      Cdn$8,350,166      Cdn$4,839,746     Cdn$1,582,060      Cdn$14,771,972
Operating income (loss)                 1,118,039           (248,597)          303,594           1,173,036
Net earnings (loss)                       698,955           (283,252)          202,362             618,065

Total assets                        Cdn$8,305,388      Cdn$5,766,474     Cdn$1,976,045      Cdn$16,047,907
Current liabilities                     1,209,918          1,142,167           171,229           2,523,314
Total liabilities                       2,813,820          1,380,518           820,391           5,014,729

1997(Canadian dollars):
-----------------------

Total revenues                      Cdn$7,535,537      Cdn$2,673,924       Cdn$142,228      Cdn$10,351,689
Operating income (loss)                   964,052            154,008           (91,598)          1,026,462
Net earnings (loss)                       530,152            154,008           (74,773)            609,387

Total assets                        Cdn$9,212,833      Cdn$4,389,449       Cdn$685,320      Cdn$14,287,602
Current liabilities                     1,883,690          1,087,934           247,391           3,219,015
Total liabilities                       2,491,657          1,127,477         1,179,820           4,798,954
</TABLE>


                                      111