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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 7, 2010 

p0331 

Order 

 

April 7, 2010 

140032 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140032 

 COA: 293625 

Oakland CC: 2008-219450-FH 

TONY SELLERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Annual Report of Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Dale McKinney,
        Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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
                  the
                  Company.




















Date:
                March 14, 2006
            
            
            
            /s/
                R. Dale McKinneyR.
                DALE MCKINNEYChief
                Financial OfficerPrincipal
                Financial andAccounting
                Officer
060P16

#### North Carolina Department of Public Safety v. Kenneth Shields

Petitioner’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-154)

Denied
# Comments on: 21-1070: NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. [OPINION], Precedential
No. 10-11065.

#### Williams *v.*Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit










Exhibit 10-G-3




Amendment to Description of Director Compensation as of January 1, 2017


Effective January 1, 2017, the Board of Directors approved an increase in Board annual retainer compensation to $315,000 from the current $250,000 and approved increases in the Presiding Director and certain Committee chair fees.  
Specifically, the Board of Directors:
		
	•
	Increased from $250,000 to $315,000 the annual retainer for Board service, while requiring $215,000 of the annual retainer to be mandatorily deferred into Restricted Stock Units under the 2014 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors.  Previously, 60% of the annual retainer was mandatorily deferred into Restricted Stock Units.  Consequently, the entire increase of $65,000 in annual retainer fees is mandatorily deferred under the 2014 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors.




		
	•
	Increased the Presiding Director fee to $50,000 from $30,000.




		
	•
	Increased the Audit Committee chair fee to $30,000 from $25,000.




		
	•
	Increased the Committee chair fees to $20,000 from $15,000 for the following Committees: Finance, Nominating and Governance, and Sustainability and Innovation (the Compensation Committee chair fee remains unchanged at $25,000).




A review of director compensation at companies similarly situated to Ford indicated that Ford was below the median levels paid to directors.  This increase is consistent with Ford’s philosophy of paying its directors near the top level of leading companies in order to continue to attract quality directors in a difficult environment.
Survey data also indicated that our fees for the Presiding Director position and the Committee chairs listed above were below competitive levels.  The Board approved the additional compensation for the Presiding Director and the chairs of each of the Committees, as shown above, to be reasonably competitive with leading companies.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Macau) Limited,**a company incorporated in Macau

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited,**a company incorporated in HongKong

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies Philippines Inc.** (formerly known as VendingDataPhilippines, Inc.), a****companyincorporated in the Republic of the Philippines

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Cambodia) Inc**., a company incorporated inCambodia

 

**Elixir Gaming Technologies (Zhongshan) Co., Limited**(formerly known as VendingDataElectric Co., Ltd), a company****incorporatedin the People’s Republic of China

 

**Dolphin Products Pty Ltd**, a company incorporated in Australia

 

**Dolphin Advanced Technologies, Pty. Ltd.** a company incorporated inAustralia

 

----
Exhibit 31.1



Rule 13a-14(a)

CERTIFICATION



I, John C. Fanning, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of COMFORCE Corporation, hereby certify that:



1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in
this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: August 4, 2005



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





23
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4192 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4192

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3000 
  Veterans Drive in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as the ``Arturo R. 
                     Watlington, Sr. Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 3000 Veterans 
Drive in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Arturo R. Watlington, Sr. Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Arturo R. Watlington, Sr. Post 
Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4192

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3000 
  Veterans Drive in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as the ``Arturo R. 
                     Watlington, Sr. Post Office''.
```
No. 11-7625.

#### O’Connor *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICHARD DARNELL JAMES

No. 281A15

Filed 18 March 2016

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._774 S.E.2d 871 (2015), finding no error after appeal from a judgment entered on 26 August 2014 by Judge Claire V. Hill in Superior Court, Johnston County, and dismissing defendant’s appeal in part. Heard in the Supreme Court on 7 December 2015.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*William D. Spence for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *State v. Williams,*_ N.C. _, _ S.E.2d _ (2016) (No. 333PA14), the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

IRACING.COM MOTORSPORT SIMULATIONS, 

LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1092

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:21-cv-11477-IT, Judge 

Indira Talwani.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the required Entry 

of Appearance form by an attorney admitted to the bar of 

this court, and having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, it is 

Case: 23-1092 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 01/20/2023
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLC V. IRACING.COM 

MOTORSPORT SIMULATIONS, LLC

2

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

January 20, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 20, 2023

Case: 23-1092 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 01/20/2023
411P15

#### State v. John W. Hearne

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Vance County

Dismissed
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ERIC FLORES,

Plaintiff-Petitioner

CYNTHIA LORENZA FLORES, JAVIER VENSOR 

FLORES, ANDY FLORES, STEVEN FLORES, 

MICHAEL RENE FLORES, EVANGELINA SALAS 

MENDOZA, JORGE SALAS,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Respondent

______________________

2023-106

______________________

On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. Section 1292(d)(2) from the United States Court of 

Federal Claims in Nos. 1:11-cv-00110-GWM and 1:11-cv00127-GWM, Judge George W. Miller.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Case: 23-106 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 03/01/2023
2 FLORES v. US

On November 29, 2022, this court received Eric Flores’s 

“petition for permission to appeal,” ECF No. 2 at 1, seeking 

to challenge the November 22, 2022, order of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims denying his motion under 

Rule 60(d)(3) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims to set aside that court’s April 8, 2011, judgment 

dismissing his case. The court docketed his petition as a 

petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). The United States moves to dismiss.

No appeal here can be brought under section 1292(d), 

because the Court of Federal Claims’ order was never certified. The court notes, however, that on November 30, 

2022, Mr. Flores separately filed “an appeal from a judgement entered by the United States Court of Federal 

Claims,” which was docketed here as Appeal No. 2023-

1243. To the extent there is any question with regard to 

whether Mr. Flores has given timely notice of his intention 

to seek review of the trial court’s November 22, 2022, order, 

the court directs the Clerk of this court to docket Mr. Flores’s petition as continuation pages to his notice of appeal

in Appeal No. 2023-1243. Any requests by the parties for 

relief in this case or arguments over the court’s jurisdiction 

should now be made by the parties in Appeal No. 2023-

1243. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. 

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to docket the petition 

as continuation pages to the notice of appeal in Appeal 

No. 2023-1243. 

(3) All other pending motions are denied.

Case: 23-106 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 03/01/2023
FLORES v. US 3

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

March 1, 2023 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-106 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 03/01/2023
# Comments on: 2019-1591: SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. US
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RUSSELL MCMILLAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3744 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 9, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge. Russell McMillan, pro se.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
No. 11-9463.

#### Barajas-Alvarado *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
337P15

#### State v. Aron Harper

1. Defs Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1182)

1. Denied 10/08/2015

2. Defs Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. Defs Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA

3. Denied

4. Defs Motion to Amend Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*and Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*and Motion for Temporary Stay

4. Allowed
# Comments on: 2018-2399: Acetris Health, LLC v. US
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRIAN M. THOMPSON,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 322 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4391

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal

year 1995.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 11, 1994

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, and Mr. BATEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime

Commission for fiscal year 1995.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Maritime

5 Commission Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal

8 Maritime Commission, $18,900,000 for fiscal year 1995.

Æ
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Holly Keller
Koeppel, the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Holly Keller
Koeppel_


Holly
Keller Koeppel


Chief
Financial Officer








May 1,
2009








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: September 16, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Ray

Saracino , EPA Region 9 SUBJECT: September 15, 2014 M eeting with Northwest Public Power Association

(NWPPA) Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 15, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. **ATTENDEES** External Stakeholders There were approximately 35
- 40 people in attendance representing public power organizations. A partial list of attendees is attached. EPA Ray Saracino, EPA R9 **Attachment s**
----

|   | (1) | The Report      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));    and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ James W.      Shaffer                                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | James      W. Shaffer                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|   | Vice      President and Chief FinancialOfficer                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: DILLIS V. ALLEN, 

Appellant

______________________

2022-2023

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/677,820.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, it is 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

December 1, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 30, 2022

Case: 22-2023 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 12/01/2022