alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen Kurtis T. Wilder,
Justices 

# Order

September 27, 2017

155541

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155541 COA: 329298 Wayne CC: 15

- 004873

- FH ORONDE GRAHAM, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the que stions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN

, C.J. ( concurring ).

I concur in this Court’s order denying leave to appeal, given that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the 180

- day period in MCL 780.131(1) does not begin to run until the prosecutor has received formal notice from the Michigan Department of

Correctio ns (MDOC) regarding a pending warrant against an inmate. People v Williams

, 475 Mich 245, 259 (2006). I write separately only to note that the statute neither places any time limitation on when the MDOC must communicate formal notice regarding a pending warrant against an inmate, nor provides a defendant a remedy if the MDOC fails to communicate such notice. The lack of such provisions arguably undermines the apparent purpose of the statute.

Here, the MDOC did not communicate formal notice to the prosecutor that a warrant was pending against defendant

-- who was incarcerated at the time the complaint

was filed

-- until approximately 16 months after the complaint against defendant was filed, by which time defendant was no longer incarcerated. Th is Court has recognized that the potential benefits of the 180

- day period in MCL 780.131(1) include “protecting concurrent sentences, minimizing obstructions to prison rehabilitation, aiding in preventing untried charges from affecting early release, and c learing court dockets andI, 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 27, 2017

s0920 2

Clerk prosecutors’ offices of stale charges.” People v Woodruff , 414 Mich 130, 137 (1982), overruled on other grounds by People v Smith , 438 Mich 715 (1991). Each of these purposes is arguably undermined when, as in this case, the MDOC does not timely communicate notice to the prosecutor after a complaint against an inmate has been filed, because communication of such notice is a precond ition to the running of the 180

- day notification period. I write only to call this matter to the Legislature’s attention so that it might, if it so chooses, take action to address this concern.

M C C ORMACK and B ERNSTEIN

, J J., join the statement of M ARKMAN

, C.J.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
39396.

#### GILLON v. JOHNS, Next Friend.

Decided March 14, 1962

Rehearing denied March 29, 1962.

*Lokey & Bowden, Hamilton Lokey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Reuben A. Garland,*contra.

Ererhardt, Judge.

While the overruling of the general demurrer may have been error when that order was made *(Curl*
      *600
      *v. Cherry,*105 Ga. App. 239, 124 SE2d 289), the amendment has placed the matter in a different posture.

The filing and certifying of the bill of exceptions to -the overruling of the demurrer did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to hear or conduct further proceedings in the cause, including the considering and allowing of an amendment to the petition. *Wood v. Delta Ins. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 720 (2) (114 SE2d 883); *Ware v. Martin,*208 Ga. 330 (3) (66 SE2d 737).

Consequently, since the petition has now been amended and the order complained of is not to an overruling of a demurrer to the petition *as amended,*there is no final judgment with which this court may now deal. *National Surety Corp. v. Hunt,*106 Ga. App. 101 (123 SE2d 558). The ruling excepted to in the bill of exceptions, not going to the petition as amended, does not reach the merits and can not become the “law of the case.” Rather, the question simply becomes moot and a reversal would not benefit the plaintiff in error. *Mooney v. Mooney,*200 Ga. 395 (4) (37 SE2d 195).

Since the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions was meritorious and, but for the belated amendment to the petition, would probably have resulted in a reversal, and since the question raised became moot as a result of this action on the part of defendant in error after the filing and certifying of the bill of exceptions (either reason being sufficient), the bill of exceptions is dismissed with the costs of appeal assessed against the defendant in error. *Baird v. City of Atlanta,*131 Ga. 451 (2) (62 SE525).

*Dismissed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
# C_2014388EN.01002301.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/23

---

Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)

(Case T-659/14)

2014/C 388/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 given in Case R 946/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2014 given in Case R 946/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PORT CARLOTTE’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark No 5 4 21  474

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g), Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with article 8(4) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the cancellation request

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11234 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DAX EVAN PICKETT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 181

- 1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Dax Evan Pickett has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Pickett h a s not filed a response. We ha ve 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 review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11234 Document: 00512751121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014No. 13

- 11234

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-11234 Document: 00512751121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1740 Tomographic x-ray system. ( a ) *Identification.* A tomographic x-ray system is an x-ray device intended to be used to produce radiologic images of a specific cross-sectional plane of the body by blurring or eliminating detail from other planes. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7988 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to include requirements 

relating to new small business entrants in the scorecard 

program, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 7988 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Pro3 curement and Utilization Reform Act of 2024’’ or the 

4 ‘‘SPUR Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO SCORECARD REQUIREMENTS. 

6 Section 15(y) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

7 644(y)) is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

9 (A) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as 

10 subparagraph (F); and 

11 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) 

12 the following new subparagraph: 

13 ‘‘(E) The number of new small business 

14 entrants, including new small business entrants 

15 that are small business concerns owned and 

16 controlled by service-disabled veterans, qualified 

17 HUBZone small business concerns, small busi18 ness concerns owned and controlled by socially 

19 and economically disadvantaged individuals, and 

20 small business concerns owned and controlled 

21 by women awarded prime contracts in each 

22 North American Industry Classification System 

23 code during the fiscal year, and a comparison 

24 to the number awarded prime contracts during 

25 the prior fiscal year, if available.’’; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 7988 RFS

1 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘subpara2 graphs (B) through (E) of paragraph (2)’’ and in3 serting ‘‘subparagraphs (B) through (F) of para4 graph (2)’’; and 

5 (3) by amending paragraph (6) to read as fol6 lows: 

7 ‘‘(6) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

8 ‘‘(A) NEW SMALL BUSINESS ENTRANT.— 

9 The term ‘new small business entrant’ means a 

10 small business concern that— 

11 ‘‘(i) has been awarded a prime con12 tract; and 

13 ‘‘(ii) has not previously been awarded 

14 a prime contract by the Federal Govern15 ment. 

16 ‘‘(B) SCORECARD.—The term ‘scorecard’ 

17 means any summary using a rating system to 

18 evaluate the efforts of a Federal agency to meet 

19 goals established under subsection (g)(1)(B) 

20 that— 

21 ‘‘(i) includes the measures described 

22 in paragraph (2); and 

23 ‘‘(ii) assigns a score to each Federal 

24 agency evaluated.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
4 

HR 7988 RFS

1 SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO. 

2 No additional amounts are authorized to be appro3 priated to carry out this Act or the amendments made 

4 by this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 11, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
04/14/2014 12:11 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7



### UNITED STATES OFAMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASIUNGTON, D.C.

In the Mattei'" of: Ridan Investments, Inc., Respondent. ) 

### ) NOTICE OFAPPEARANCE ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) 

### ) FAADocketNo. [TBA]
FAA Region: Western-Pacific Judge: Richal"d C. Goodwin FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 FAA Case No. 201280700133

Pursuant to section 13.33 ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions, the, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby designates the following Attorney <LS 

### counsel 

### inthe captioned case: Courtney Adolph, Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7.4 P.O.l3ox 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Phone (310) 725-7128 Facsimile (310) 

### 725-6816 Email: Courtney.Adolph@faa,gov Respectfully submitted, NAOMI TSUDA Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region
By: liiJ 002/00304/14/2014 12:11 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifythat the attached 

### Notice ofAppearance inthe Matter ofRidan Investments, Inc., has been sent to the following parties, via certified mail, retnrr receipt requested, or via facsimile where indicated below. Hon. Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DB 20590 Attn: Patricia Matthews FAX: 202-366-7536 Lawrence M. Burek (Counsel for the Respondent) 550 NorthParkcenterDrive, Suite 204 Santa Ana, CA 92705
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Atta.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 FAX: 202-493-5142

# ~Jk Paralegal, Enforcement Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal AviationAdministration Lawndale, California 90261
Dated: April I4, 2014

2 l{!j 003/00304/14/2014 12:11 FAX 3107256816 AWP-7

To: Company; Phone: Fax:
From: Title:

Date:
Description of itembeing transmitted: Hen. Richard C. Goodwin Office of Hearinqs, M-20, US DOT (202) 366-7536 Courtney Adolph Attornev

4/14/15 

### Notice of Apperance In the Matter of Ridan Investments, Inc., FDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 FAA Case No. 201280700133 FAA Docket No. TBD 

# Federal Aviation Administration

Office ofthe Regional Coumel, A WP

### 7.4 PO Box92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 Telephone: (3!0) 725-7128 Facsimile: (310) 725-6816 Email: Courtney.Adolph@loa.gov 

### Facsimile

TotalNumber ofpages includlug the cover page: 3

1:1 PER YOUR REQUEST 1:1 FOR YOUR REVIEW 1:1 PLEASE COMMENT

1:1 FOR COORDINATION D HARD COPY TO FOLLOW VIA US M,4.1L NOTES/COMMENTS:

cc: HeatingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 (H"'"d copy to follow inthe U.S. n;1ai\) (202) 493-5142 Lawrence Bnrek Hardcopy sent in the U.S. 

### mail) lill 001/003
Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-P1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;


3.	Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and


5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; LNR Partners, LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Computershare Trust Company, National Association; CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC; Berkeley Point Capital LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas;and Wilmington Trust, National Association.



Date:	March 31, 2023

/s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

CGCMT 2015-P1 Certifications

---
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1400 Nuclear sealed calibration source. ( a ) *Identification.* A nuclear sealed calibration source is a device that consists of an encapsulated reference radionuclide intended for calibration of medical nuclear radiation detectors.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 892.9.
[53 FR 1567, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 13832, Apr. 5, 1989; 66 FR 38819, July 25, 2001]
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Raina, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| By:                     | /s/ Robin Raina |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------|--------|
|                    |            |
| Name:                   | Robin Raina     |   |
|                    |            |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |            |
|                    |            |
| August 14, 2006         |            |
|                         |                 |        |  |

 

----

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A  for  the  period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
 with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the
 "Report"), I, John C. Stuecheli,  Chief Financial Officer  of  the  Company,
 certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350,  as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (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  result  of
           operations of the Company.



 /s/ John C. Stuecheli


 John C. Stuecheli

 Chief Financial Officer

 July 14, 2006
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10031 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARTHUR J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-98-ALL-P

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Arthur J. Muhammad appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for making false statements to a federally insured financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1041. He argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because his counsel was ineffective in permitting him to sign and file a factual resume that admitted fraudulent conduct beyond that required to establish a factual predicate for his plea. Because the record is not sufficiently developed with regard to counsel’s strategy,No. 05-10031 -2- this claim is not ready for review. See United States v. Gibson , 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). Muhammad argues that the Government breached the plea agreement because it did not orally recommend at sentencing a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. However, the Government’s agreement to recommend a low-end sentence was incorporated into the presentence report, meaning it was beforethe court at sentencing. The recommendation was therefore “selfexecuting.” See United Stated v. Reeves , 255 F.3d 208, 210-11 (5th Cir. 2001). The Government did not breach the plea agreement. Muhammad has moved for release pending appeal. The motion is denied as the rules provide only for review by this court of such motions filed in the district court, see F ED . R. A PP . P. 9(b), and because the motion is now moot.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
§ 582.1217 Calcium phosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium phosphate (mono-, di-, and tribasic).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Stanley J. Olander, Jr., certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc.; and
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this amended quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: August 27, 2003 |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |