alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

AFFILIATED MEDICAL OF DEARBORN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 2014

v No. 314179 Wayne Circuit Court LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 11-012755-NF

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’C ONNELL , P.J., and B ORRELLO and G LEICHER , JJ.

O’C ONNELL , P.J. ( dissenting ).

I respectfully dissent. The question in this case is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to enter a default judgment of $30,781.93. I would conclude that it does and affirm.

Plaintiff, Affiliated Medical of Dearborn (Affiliated Medical) filed suit in the circuit court and averred in its complaint that the amou nt in controversy in this case was over $25,000. Later, in a motion for default j udgment, Affiliated Medical alleged that defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) ow ed it $20,500 for services rendered, $7,645.68 in attorney fees, and interest and other costs. The trial court entered a default judgment of $30,781.93, which included interest and attorney fees.

“A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is dete rmined only by reference to the allegations listed in the complaint.” Neal v Oakwood Hosp Corp , 226 Mich App 701, 707; 575 NW2d 68 (1997). “Jurisdictional allegations are not viewed in hindsight.” Peters v Gunnell, Inc , 253 Mich App 211, 224 n 10; 655 NW2d 582 (2002). Further, th e circuit court shou ld not transfer a case to the district court unless it appears to a legal certainty th at the amount in controversy is less than $25,000. Etefia v Credit Technologies, Inc , 245 Mich App 466, 474-475; 628 NW2d 577 (2001); Supreme Court Admi nistrative Order 1998-1.

I cannot conclude that the circu it court should have transferred this case to the district court. I cannot conclude that th e circuit court could not have dete rmined with legal certainty that Affiliated Medical’s claims in their complaint totaled less than $25,000 so lely on the basis that they asked for only $20,500 of actual damages when filing their motion for a default judgment. Subject matter jurisdiction exists on the basis of what a plaintiff has a basis to believe is in the amount in controversy when they fi le their complaint, not on the basis of the amount the plaintiff actually receives. Voiding a judgment simply becau se the plaintiffs later asked for less than they-2- asserted was in controversy in the complaint is th e equivalent of asking pl aintiffs to predict the future.

Further, while the general rule is that costs a nd attorney fees are not considered part of an amount in controversy, when a statute expressly provides for attorney fees, those fees may be considered part of the am ount in controversy. See Id . MCL 500.3148(1) prov ides that an attorney is entitled to fees as “a charge against the insurer in a ddition to the benefits recovered” for an improper denial of benefits. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the circuit court should have determined to a legal cer tainty that the amount in cont roversy here was certainly under $25,000.

For these reasons, I would affirm.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
§ 612.4 Recapture. ( a ) Credits allocated to an owner/operator shall be subject to recapture— ( 1 ) If the nuclear reactor terminates operations during the award period, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; or
( 2 ) At the conclusion of the award period, if the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) If the Department determines that a nuclear reactor has terminated operations during the award period, then the Department will recapture the award of credits for the award year in which the termination of operations occurred and for any remaining award years by rescinding the credits awarded but not paid, and the owner/operator shall have no further rights to any credits. In addition, the value of credits that the Department has previously paid to the owner/operator with respect to a prior award year shall be repaid to the Department by the owner/operator if the Department determines that the nuclear reactor terminated operations as a result of the owner/operator's failure to adhere to prudent industry practice in the operation of the nuclear reactor during the award period.
( c ) Following the conclusion of the award period, the Department will determine whether, for the award period, the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits. The amount subject to recapture following the conclusion of the award period shall be determined in the same manner that the annual adjustment of credits is calculated under the terms of the award of such credits.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv00754-WC

)

TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED )

THIRTY FIVE ($2,935) DOLLARS IN ) 

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

O R D E R

For good cause, it is 

ORDERED that this case be and is hereby set for a scheduling conference on 29

January 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5A, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States

Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama before the undersigned

Magistrate Judge. 

The parties have filed their Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. 

DONE this 11th day of January, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 13 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 13 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
PGI 245.201-70 Security classification.       Classified contracts are not exempt from including GFP attachments solely because the contracts are classified.    **Parent topic:** PGI 245.201 Solicitation.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the quarterly report of B.H.I.T. Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2004, the undersigned being the chief executive
officer and chief financial officer of B.H.I.T. Inc., do hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:  1.
    
    This Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Registrant at the dates and for the periods shown in such
report. B.H.I.T.
    
    Inc.By:
    
    /s/ James Benenson, Jr.James Benenson, Jr.
    
    Date: August 2, 2004Chairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ John V. CurciJohn V. Curci
Vice-President, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer
Principal Accounting Officer
    
    Date: August 2, 2004
Promissory Note dated March 12, 2004



 Exhibit 10(y) 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	 $30,000,000
	  	March 12, 2004    
		  	Santa Ana, California

 For
value received, The First American Corporation, a California corporation (“Maker”), promises to pay to the order of First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, a California corporation (“Payee”), at 7833 Haskell Avenue,
Van Nuys, California 91406, the principal sum of Thirty Million Dollars ($30,000,000.00), and to pay interest on the balance of principal remaining from time-to-time outstanding and unpaid from March 12, 2004, until paid, at the rate of four
and one-quarter percent (4.25%) per annum. Principal and interest shall be paid in lawful money of the United States of America and in immediately available funds. 
 Said principal and interest shall be due and payable in equal quarterly installments in the amount of Six Hundred
Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-nine and One Hundredth Dollars ($678,759.01) commencing on the 12th day of June 2004, with quarterly payments continuing thereafter, until March 12, 2019, when the entire unpaid
balance of principal, together with all accrued interest thereon remaining unpaid, shall be due and payable in full. 
 Each
payment made on this note shall be applied first to accrued interest, and the balance thereof shall be applied to installments of principal then due or to become due hereunder in the order of their maturity. This note may be prepaid at any time or
times in whole or in part, without notice or penalty. Prepayments of principal shall be applied in the order of maturity. Principal that is prepaid shall cease to bear interest from the date of prepayment. 
 Should interest not be so paid, it shall thereafter bear like interest as the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not
exceed an amount equal to simple interest on the unpaid principal at the maximum rate permitted by law. Should default be made in the payment of any








 
installment of interest or principal when due, all unpaid principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due and payable at the option of the holder of this note. Should suit be
commenced or an attorney be employed to enforce the payment of this note, Maker agrees to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys’ fees in said suit. 
 This note is made under, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. 
  

			
	THE FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas A. Klemens

		 	Thomas A. Klemens, Senior Executive Vice President
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark R Arnesen

		 	Mark R Arnesen, Secretary
§ 603.530 Acceptable cost sharing. The contracting officer may accept any cash or in-kind contributions that meet all of the following criteria. ( a ) In the contracting officer's judgment, they represent meaningful cost sharing that demonstrates the recipient's commitment to the success of the RD&D project. Cash contributions clearly demonstrate commitment and they are strongly preferred over in-kind contributions.
( b ) They are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of the RD&D project's objectives.
( c ) They are costs that may be charged to the project under § 603.625 and § 603.635, as applicable to the participant making the contribution.
( d ) They are verifiable from the recipient's records.
( e ) They are not included as cost sharing contributions for any other Federal award.
( f ) They are not paid by the Federal Government under another award, except: ( 1 ) Costs that are authorized by Federal statute to be used for cost sharing.
( 2 ) Independent research and development (IR&D) costs, as described in 48 CFR part 31.208-18, that meet all of the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. IR&D is acceptable as cost sharing, even though it may be reimbursed by the Government through other awards. It is standard business practice for all for-profit firms, including commercial firms, to recover their IR&D costs through prices charged to their customers. Thus, the cost principles at 48 CFR part 31 allow a for-profit firm that has expenditure-based, Federal procurement contracts to recover through those procurement contracts the allocable portion of its research and development costs associated with a technology investment agreement. Contracting officers should note that in accordance with section 603.545, they may not count participant's costs of prior research, including IR&D, as a cost sharing contribution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Case, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 272]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered February 9, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the second degree (18 counts), incest (14 counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree (11 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the convictions of rape in the second degree and incest during specified two-month periods are not preserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Weldon,*191 AD2d 662 [1993]; *People v Barrett,*166 AD2d 657, 658 [1990]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, the contentions are without merit. The defendant repeatedly raped and sexually abused his biological daughter over a period of five years. The victim could not recall the exact dates of the incidents. The indictment charged the defendant with a specific crime during a specified two-month period. In view of the age of the victim, the repetitive and clandestine nature of the crimes, the continuous and long-term nature of the abuse, and the fact that time is not a material element of *707the charged crimes, the two-month intervals were reasonably specific and provided the defendant with adequate notice *(see People v Watt,*81 NY2d 772, 774 [1993]; *People v Keindl,*68 NY2d 410, 419 [1986]; *People v Morris,*61 NY2d 290, 293-296 [1984]; *People v Cosby,*222 AD2d 690 [1995]; *People v Barrett, supra*at 658; *People v Willette,*109 AD2d 112, 114-115 [1985]; *People v Coveney,*134 Misc 2d 894 [1987]). Moreover, the counts are neither duplicitous nor multiplicitous *(see People v Keindl, supra*at 419; *People v Cosby, supra).*

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563 [2000]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Miller, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.
### U NITED 

### S TATES 

### A IR 

### F ORCE



### C OURT OF 

### C RIMINAL 

### A PPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40 477

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Jesus A. GALERA )

Staff Sergeant ( E

- 5 ) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 3

On 30 May 2024, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach a

DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special

Courts

- Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals , signed by

Appellant and Appellant’s counsel on 30 May 2024.

The Government did not submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 4th day of June, 2024,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records

Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for Courts

Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2024

ed.).

FOR THE COURT

FLEMING E. KEEFE, Capt, USAF

Deputy Clerk of the Court
H. Res. 596

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

December 14, 2005.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the further conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the 

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. All points of 

order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered 

as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF J. A. R., D. R., J. 

R., J. N. R., K. L. R. AND A. M. G., 

CHILDREN,

 

 Appellant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00164-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2021DCM3784)

O R D E R

In order to protect the identity of the minor children who are the subject of this appeal, the 

Court has determined on its own motion that it is necessary to identify the children by their initials, 

J. A. R., D. R., J. R., J. N. R., K. L. R. and A. M. G., and the parent by initials as well, in all papers 

submitted to the Court, including letters, motions, and briefs. See Tex.R.App.P. 9.8. The Court 

will also refer to the children and parent by their initials in correspondence, orders, and in its 

opinion and judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
2802.101 Definitions.

Throughout this chapter, the following words and terms are used as defined in this subpart unless

the context in which they appear clearly requires a different meaning, or a different definition is

prescribed for a particular part or portion of a part.

(a) Agency means the Department of Justice.

(b) Bureau means contracting activity. (See “contracting activity” in this subpart.)

(c) Bureau Procurement Chief or BPC means the supervisory official who is directly responsible for

supervising, managing, and directing all contracting offices of the bureau.

(d) Cardholder means an individual entrusted with a Government Purchase Card.

(e) Chief Acquisition Officer or CAO means the official appointed to assist the head of the agency

and other agency officials to ensure the mission of the agency is achieved through the management

of the agency's acquisition activities.

(f) Chief of the Contracting Office means that supervisory official who is directly responsible for

supervising, managing and directing a contracting office.

(g) Contracting activity means a component within the Department which has been delegated

procurement authority to manage contracting functions associated with its mission (see

2801.601(a)).

(h) Department or DOJ means the Department of Justice.

(i) Head of the Contracting Activity or HCA means those officials identified in 2801.601(a) having

responsibility for supervising, managing, and directing the operations of the contracting activity.

(j) JAR means the Department of Justice Acquisition Regulation in this chapter.

(k) JMD means the Justice Management Division.

(l) OIG means DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.

(m) Suspension and Debarment Official or SDO means the employee designated to impose

suspension and debarment for the Department of Justice.

(n) Senior Procurement Executive or SPE means the official designated to be responsible for

management direction of the Department of Justice procurement system, including implementation

of unique procurement policies, regulations, and standards of the Department of Justice.

Parent topic: Subpart 2802.1 - Definitions
223 So.2d 874

#### MANPOWER OF BATON ROUGE, INC. v. Jessie JOHNSON et al.

No. 49930.

July 7, 1969.

In re: F. C. Doyal, Jr., Administrator of the Department of Employment Security, State of Louisiana, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 222 So.2d 340.

The application is denied. The judgment complained of is not final.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 624 

Requesting the President of the United States and directing the Secretary 

of State to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents 

in their possession relating to United States policies under the United 

Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MEEKS of 

New York, Ms. BERKLEY, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. LEE, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, 

Mr. ENGEL, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. BERMAN, and Mr. PAYNE) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting the President of the United States and directing 

the Secretary of State to provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to United States policies under the United Nations 

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman 

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva 

Conventions. 

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States is 

2 requested and the Secretary of State is directed to provide 
2 

•HRES 624 IH 

1 to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days 

2 after the date of the adoption of this resolution— 

3 (1) all documents, memoranda, and advisory 

4 legal opinions in the possession of the President or 

5 the Secretary of State, respectively, from the De6 partment of State provided to the Executive Office 

7 of the President since September 11, 2001, relating 

8 to— 

9 (A) United States policies under the 

10 United Nations Convention Against Torture 

11 and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treat12 ment or Punishment (1465 U.N.T.S. 113) to13 ward individuals captured by or transferred to 

14 the United States or detained in United States 

15 custody as part of the Global War on Terror; 

16 and 

17 (B) United States policies under the Gene18 va Conventions (6 U.S.T. 3114, 6 U.S.T. 3217, 

19 6 U.S.T. 3316, and 6 U.S.T. 3516) toward in20 dividuals captured by or transferred to the 

21 United States or detained in United States cus22 tody as part of the Global War on Terror; and 

23 (2) all documents, including notes from meet24 ings, memos, and telephone and electronic mail 

25 records of internal discussions since September 11, 
3 

•HRES 624 IH 

1 2001, in the possession of the President or the Sec2 retary of State, respectively, relating to United 

3 States policies under the United Nations Convention 

4 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or De5 grading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva 

6 Conventions. 

Æ
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) 3:06-CV-761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

MOTION FOR HEARING AS TO EFFECT OF AMPARO ON THIS CASE

COMES NOW, the respondent, Maria Coonley, by and through counsel and 

states as follows:

1. The respondent in this cause is in extradition proceedings with a final hearing now 

set for June 11, 2008.

2. The respondent has applied for and received an initial order as to a Mexican 

Amparo, which is a pretrial remedy available in Mexican Courts. (see attached)

3. A hearing is now set in that cause for June 9, 2008 in Mexico.

4. The result of that hearing could be to find a lack of probable cause in the charges 

that the respondent now faces in Mexico which would impact this proceeding as 

can be seen in the case In re Extradition of Santos, 473 F.Supp.2d 1030 (C.D. Cal.

2006).

5. The Santos case is the only case on point which the undersigned has found 

regarding the impact of an Amparo on an extradition case. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent requests a prehearing conference to resolve what 

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 2
questions can be resolved as to the impact of the Amparo on this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

____________//s/Ben Bruner___________

Ben Bruner

Attorney at Law

505 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

(334) 323 4463

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 6, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing

to the following: Christopher Snyder Assistant U.S. Attorney

/s/ Ben Bruner

 Ben Bruner

Attorney at Law

505 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

(334) 323 4463

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 6 of 6