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

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED
June 19, 2018

v No. 337572

Roscommon Circuit Court

WILLIAM FRANK SIKORSKI JR., LC No. 12

- 006736

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: M URPHY

, P .J., and J ANSEN and S WARTZLE , JJ.

J ANSEN

, J

. ( dissenting )

Because I agree with defendant that the Crosby 1 remand procedure was improper, and because, in my view, defense counsel admits he provided ineffective assistance of counsel, I respectfully dissent.

In People v Lockridge , our Supreme Court articulated, at length, the proper procedure when conducting a Crosby hearing on remand. See Lockridge , 498 Mich at 398. Due process requires the trial court to allow defendant an opportunity to inform the court whether or not he will seek resentencing. Id. It is undisputed, and even admitted by defense counsel, that this did not happen here. Indeed, defense counsel admits that he did not consult with defendant prior to

the Crosby hearing, and further, defendant was not even present for the hearing. Defense counsel was appointed to represent defendant in all po st

- conviction proceedings. A Crosby hearing is a post

- conviction proceeding, and no substitution of counsel had occurred. Accordingly, in my view, the trial court in this matter has not fulfilled the duty it owes to defendant to protect defendant’s right to due process of law. Given the cumulative errors that took place in this matter, I disagree with the majority that “any error with respect to defendant’s opportunity to avoid resentencing” is harmless. I would again remand to the trial court for

defen dant to receive effective assistance of counsel relating to a properly conducted Crosby hearing.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen

1 United States v Crosby , 397 F3d 103 (CA 2, 2005).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         461,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,993,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,923,123
<INVENTORY>                                     77,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,134,522
<PP&E>                                       2,622,554
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,105,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,395,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,089,949
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,270
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,395,677
<SALES>                                      3,783,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,342,231
<CGS>                                        3,288,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,288,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,440,797
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,829,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,775,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,775,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,775,165)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        

</TABLE>
CONSULTING AGREEMENT



Exhibit 10.14


 

 

CONSULTING AGREEMENT


THIS CONSULTING AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 1st day of January 1998, by and between ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY, LLC (the "Company") and Thomas J. Shafer (the "Consultant"). 


WHEREAS, Thomas J. Shafer has been associated with St. Charles as a consulting engineer since 1965 and the Company believes it is essential to retain his involvement with the St. Charles Planned Community, the Company wishes to secure his services as a Consultant, and the Consultant wishes to provide such services, in accordance with the terms and subject to the conditions provided herein;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions:


I.POSITION


The Company hereby engages the Consultant, and the Consultant hereby agrees to provide engineering and consulting services including but not limited to assistance in environmental matters, advice on property transfers, liaison with Charles County, participation in the Planning Development Review Board and general consultation on development issue.


II.COMPENSATION


The Consultant will be paid $2,500 per month for these services, payable semi-monthly.


III.TERM


The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date hereof, and shall continue for one year, renewable each year for an additional term of one year.


The Company or the Consultant may terminate this agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice delivered by hand or facsimile transmission or when mailed by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:


If to the Company:



St. Charles Community, LLC

222 Smallwood Village Center

St. Charles, Maryland 20602

Attention:  Edwin L. Kelly



If to the Consultant:



Thomas J. Shafer

2928 Normandy Drive

Ellicott City, MD 21043




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above.


 

	
WITNESS
	
ST. CHARLES COMMUNITY, LLC

	 	 
	
/s/ Richard E. Barnas
	
/s/ Edwin L. Kelly

	 	
Its:  Chairman

	 	
Date: February 2, 1999

	 	 
	
/s/ Robert D. Britt
	
/s/ Thomas J. Shafer

	 	
Date: February 2, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.4

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
                                                     -------------------------------------------
                                                      NUMBER          PERCENT        EQUIVALENT
                                                     OF SHARES      OUTSTANDING         SHARES
                                                    ----------      -----------     ------------
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>            <C>      
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                              2,300,000          100.00%        2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                           1,060,225           88.35%          936,674
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock        15,310,943          100.00%       15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                      11,242,857          100.00%       11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                       4,323,874          100.00%        4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                        6,000,000          100.00%        6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued          110,943           75.19%           83,423
   1997 Warrants Exercised                              49,450           98.26%           48,590
                                                   -----------                      ------------
                                                    40,398,292                        40,246,361

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                   40,246,361

LOSS BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS                                                      (41,710,000)
EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS                                                                  (17,606,000)
                                                                                    ------------
NET LOSS                                                                            $(59,316,000)

LOSS BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS                                                            (1.03)
EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS                                                                        (0.44)
                                                                                    ------------
NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                  $      (1.47)
                                                                                    ============
</TABLE>
§ 582.5945 Vitamin B12. ( a ) *Product.* Vitamin B12.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
38635.

#### BONNER v. BARNES *et al.*

Decided February 21, 1961

Rehearing denied March 16, 1961.

*Frank P. Lappas, Sidney I. Rose,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edward E. Dorsey, C. James Jessee, Jr.,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

It does not seem to us that the maintenance of an air-conditioning unit which extends approximately two1 feet from the side of a building, even at head level, constitutes negligence on the part of the defendant. The presence of such equipment on the side of the building can easily be anticipated and thus distinguishes this case from the “public thoroughfare” cases relied on by the plaintiff. “Where a petition does not show the risk of unreasonable danger and does not show that the defendant could reasonably have foreseen danger to an invitee on his property, the trial court did *365not err in sustaining the general demurrer.” *McHugh v. Trust Co. of Ga.,*102 Ga. App. 412 (116 S. E. 2d 512). The utility of the defendants’ act in placing an air conditioner in the premises for the comfort of customers far outweighs, under these circumstances, the likelihood of possible danger to invitees. “Negligence is bottomed on the anticipation of unreasonable risk which outweighs the utility of the defendants’ conduct.” *Ely v. Barbizon Towers,*101 Ga. App. 872 (115 S. E. 2d 616). Moreover, the petition shows on its face that the plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care for her own safety in walking hurriedly, head down, less than two feet from the side of a building. Also, if the air conditioner extended so close to or over the cement strip, the difficulty or danger, if there was any, in driving the automobile past it should have put the plaintiff sufficiently on notice of its presence. “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover.” *Code*§ 105-603.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as amended.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.*
Application Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program

Bert Mooney Airport AuthoritySummary Information

Summary Information

A. Applicant Information: 

(Check all that apply)

X Not a 

Consortium

Interstate 

Consortium

Intrastate 

Consortium

X Community now receives EAS subsidy

X

Community (or Consortium member) previously 

received a Small Community Grant

If previous recipient: 

Date of grant: 09/07/04 02/24/10

Expiration date: 09/06 04/12*

Federal funds requested: $360,000 $460,000

Carrier service obtained: N/A N/A

Destination(s) served: N/A N/A

* BTM SCASDP returned due to conversion of 

service to EAS

B. Public/Private Partnerships: 

(List organization names)

Public Private

1. Bert Mooney Airport 

Authority

1. Butte-Silver Bow 

Chamber of Commerce

2. City/County of ButteSilver Bow2. Butte Local Development 

Corporation

C. Project Proposal: 

(Check all that apply)

X Marketing Start-Up Cost 

Offset

Travel Bank Secure Additional 

Service

Surface Transportation New Route

Launch New Carrier Subsidy

Study Revenue 

Guarantee

Upgrade Aircraft First Service

Service Restoration Other (explain 

Regional Service below):

D. Existing Landing Aids at Local Airport:

X Full ILS X Published Instrument Approach

X Localizer X Outer/Middle Marker

X Other (specify): VOR, GPS, RNAV

E. Project Cost:

Line Description Sub 

Total

Total 

Amount

1 Federal amount requested $150,000

2 State cash financial 

contribution $0

Local cash financial 

contribution

3a. Airport cash funds $2,500

3b. Non-airport cash funds $12,500

3 Total local cash funds 

(3a+3b) $15,000

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING 

(1.+2.+3c.) $165,000

In-Kind contribution

5a. Airport in-kind

contribution** $5,000

5b. Other in-kind

contribution** $5,000

5 TOTAL IN-KIND 

CONTRIBUTION (5a.+5b.) $10,000

6 TOTAL PROJECT COST

(4+5) $175,000

F. In-Kind Contributions**:

5a. Strategic plan staffing/monitoring

5b. Strategic plan staffing/monitoring

G. Is this application subject to review by State 

under Executive Order 12372 process?

a. This application was made available to the 

State under the Executive Order 12372. Process 

for review on (date) _____________.

b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not 

been selected by the State for review.

c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.

H. Is the Applicant delinquent on any Federal 

debt? (if “yes”, provide explanation)

No

Yes (explain)

X

X
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2015-3, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning onMarch 1, 2018and ending onFebruary 28, 2019and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2019 .





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Enrique Mayor-Mora


Enrique Mayor-Mora


Vice President and Treasurer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0514 IN THE MATTER OF, A.G., 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 March 15 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2024

02/09/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0514
§ 876.1725 Gastrointestinal motility monitoring system. ( a ) *Identification.* A gastrointestinal motility monitoring system is a device used to measure peristalic activity or pressure in the stomach or esophagus by means of a probe with transducers that is introduced through the mouth into the gastrointestinal tract. The device may include signal conditioning, amplifying, and recording equipment. This generic type of device includes the esophageal motility monitor and tube, the gastrointestinal motility (electrical) system, and certain accessories, such as a pressure transducer, amplifier, and external recorder.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
#### Commonwealth v. Sullum

*Detleff A. Hansen,*district attorney, for Commonwealth.

*Edward L. Williams*and *Michael Keegan,*for defendant.

May 26, 1952.

Davis, P. J.,

This matter comes before the court on hearing for violation of The Vehicle Code. The case was called for hearing by District Attorney Detleff A. Hansen, whereupon counsel for defendant, Edward L. Williams and Michael Keegan, moved for dismissal of the information and transcript upon the grounds that the transcript coming from the office of Frank C. Frutchey, justice of the peace, had not been signed and attested to, and further that the *116transcript indicated and states that a plea of not guilty was entered at a hearing, whereas, in fact, the hearing was waived upon this matter.

An examination of the files shows a paper purporting to be a transcript regarding violation of The Vehicle Code, and also a general bail bond in the sum of $50, conditioned that defendant appear at the next term of the court of quarter sessions. The paper purporting to be a transcript is not signed by the justice of the peace or sealed. The body of the paper sets forth that defendant appeared before the justice of the peace to make defense of the charge, that he pleaded not guilty, and a member of the State police was sworn on behalf of the Commonwealth. It further discloses the charge of $1 for a hearing.

The bail bond was taken and acknowledged on October 13, 1950, whereas the purported transcript sets forth that defendant appeared before the justice on November 8,1950. Although this paper indicates that a hearing was held, the district attorney and defendant both say hearing was waived. The paper on its face gives no clue as to how the matter was finally concluded.

It is quite obvious that there is nothing before the court on which a final decision could be sustained. An unsigned paper purporting to be a transcript but not setting forth that a hearing was waived has been erroneously and improperly filed in the court of quarter sessions. This nullity will neither support a hearing nor a binding decision in relation to this defendant nor will it justify the payment of costs by the county to any party. As we view it, this case is still pending before the justice of the peace unless it has been disposed of by him other than by returning the same to the court of quarter sessions in this proceeding.
#### § 1.1012-2 Transfers in part a sale and in part a gift.

For rules relating to basis of property acquired in a transfer which is in part a gift and in part a sale, see §§ 1.170A-4(c), 1.1011-2(b), and § 1.105-4.

[T.D. 7207, 37 FR 20799, Oct. 5, 1972]
### NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1255 TONY COLIDA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA and MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in

case no. 05-CV-5527, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., and Magistrate Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

ON MOTION Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge. ORDER Tony Colida submits a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It appears that Colida is attempting to appeal a district court order denying his motion to reopen his case and denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in that court. With his notice of appeal, Colida also submitted to the district court a motion to extend or reopen the time to file an appeal. It appears that the district court has not ruled on the motion to extend or reopen the time to file an appeal. If the district court does not extend or reopen the time to file an appeal, then Colida's appeal is clearly untimely.We also note that, before moving for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this

court, Colida must file with the district court a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). If the district court grants the motion, then Colida may proceed in forma pauperis in this court on appeal. If the district court denies the motion, then within 30 days of the district court's order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Colida may request that this court permit him to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and must include a copy of the district court's order. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The briefing schedule is stayed for 60 days, to allow time for the district court to decide Colida's motion to extend or reopen the time to appeal. Either party should promptly inform this court if the district court acts on the motion.

Colida's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is rejected. Colida must pay the docketing fee within 30 days of the date of filing of this order, unless he notifies this court that he has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in the district court. FOR THE COURT 

### JUN 11 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk U.S.eau THE F cc: Tony Colida Peter J. Pizzi, Esq. United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Judge s8 JUN 1 1 2009

nth-lemur CLERK 2009-1255 2