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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 7, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130393 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WALKER, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130393 COA: 265236 Kent CC: 05-001215-AR JOHN UJVARI, 59 th DC: W165164B Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 30, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0531 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 7, 2006

Clerk
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0359Protecting Your Community from Terrorism, Volume 1: Local-Federal PartnershipsThis is the first in a series on Protecting Your Community From Terrorism: Strategies for Local Law Enforcement. The PERF white paper funded by the COPS Office is based in large part on an unprecedented executive session in November 2002 that brought together chief law enforcement executives, FBI Special Agents in Charge and antiterrorist experts, and other leading thinkers on how law enforcement will deal with the new terrorist threat. It was a no-holds-barred meeting in which candid debates were conducted on such issues as how to promote effective partnerships; security clearances and information sharing; joint terrorism task forces; FBI strategies; intelligence; multijurisdictional information sharing; and training and awareness. The result is more than 50 recommendations detailed in this paper-set largely by consensus and an urgent desire to move our preparedness and response forward in these difficult times.By Gerard R. Murphy, Martha R. PlotkinCategories: Homeland SecurityLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0359Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Mar 2003Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:25 (UTC-5) in 0.22 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 3847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-715]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 12 p.m., Monday, January 30, 2006.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of 
Board Members; 202-452-2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: January 20, 2006.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 06-715 Filed 1-20-06; 3:13 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### HARRINGTON *v.*PHIPPS.

Motion to dismiss submitted April 5,

decided April 26, 1910.

[108 Pac. 185.]

Appeal and Error — Filing of Transcript — Extension of Time.

The appeal being, by provision of Section 549, subd. 4, B. & C. Comp., perfected from the time the surety on the appeal bond, being excepted to, appears and justifies, -within 30 days from which time appellant is required to file a transcript in the Supreme Court, unless, as provided by Section 553, subd. 2, an order for extension of the time therefor be made 'within said 30 days, no jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court by the filing of the transcript under an order of the trial court made after expiration of such 30 days, so that appeal will be dismissed.

From Jackson: Hiero K. Hanna, Judge.

*262This is an action by John Harrington against W. E. Phipps, Frances M. Snyder and J. R. Neil. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Dismissed.

On Motion to Dismiss.

Mr. *Porter J. Neff,*for the motion.

Mr. *Robert G. Smith*and Mr. *Hiero K. Hanna, Jr., contra.*

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Moore.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. At the trial this action was dismissed, and the plaintiff, in order to review the judgment, caused to be served and filed a notice of appeal and an undertaking. Exceptions were taken to the sufficiency of the surety in the undertaking, who, pursuant to notice, appeared at the time appointed, January 25, 1910, and justified, whereupon the appeal became perfected. Section 549, subd. 4, B. & C. Comp. Within 30 days from that time the appellant was required to file with the clerk of this court a transcript or an abstract on appeal, or to secure an order enlarging the time to file the same. Section 553, subd. 2, B. & C. Comp. The trial court, on February 26, 1910, made an order allowing the plaintiff 30 days therefrom to file the transcript, and it was filed in this court February 28, 1910. The order, therefore, was made after the expiration of the 30 days specified, and no jurisdiction of the cause was conferred by the filing of the transcript.

The appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0884Preventing Minority Youth Violence: CDC Model WorksheetThis worksheet exercise tracks the key elements of the CDC's model for a public health approach to violence prevention. The worksheet can help aid in planning a minority youth violence prevention program. The full toolkit is available at https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=COPS-W0883.By Medina Henry, Matthew WatkinsCategories: Community Partnerships • Youth SafetyLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0884Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Feb 2020Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 00:42 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 14,

2000 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. C LOUSE
Filed July 11, 2001

D AVID G. H AYES , J., concur ring.

I join with Judge O gle in c oncluding that the Appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violate d. I would also make the observation that, similar in purpose to the DUI statute, the stated public policy purpose in enacting the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act was to remove from the hig hwa ys th ose offenders who have "demonstrated their indifference to the safety and welfare of others." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-602(2).

Add iti ona lly, when the "no bail" policy position was instituted, the sentence of the habitual offender, similarto the minimum mandat ory sentenc

e of the DUI o

ffender, could

not b e s uspended. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-616(c). For these and other reasons, the habitual motor offender and the DUI offender were both viewed by the legislature and our courts as an immed

iate and common thr

eat to those traveling the public highways of this state. I n State v. Pennington , 952 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1997), our supreme cour

t found, in part, tha

t protection of the

public by a b

rief perio d of pret rial detention of

a suspected DUI offender was reasonably related to a

legitimate government purpose, i.e. , protection of

the public. While co

ncededly, the no bail policy

position was ill-fou

nded, this does notcompel, however

, the conclusion tha

t it was imposed solely to punish. In the absence of proof of an intent to punish, a

court should look to a

n alternative re

ason which may

serve a legitim

at e governmental purpose. Doe v. Norris , 751 S.W.2d 834, 839 (Tenn.1988). I find from the facts in t his case that it may reasonably be inferred that the basis of the policy was both the immediat e protection of the public and attendance of the habitual offender for trial.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 9, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-15946 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 9:02-cr-80051-DTKH-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HAROLD JOHNSON, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(July 9, 2012)

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Harold Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to modify

his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Johnson was convicted of

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack

cocaine. Because Johnson had two prior felony convictions for the sale of a

controlled substance, he was sentenced under the career offender guidelines of

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Nevertheless, Johnson filed his motion pursuant to Amendment

750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels

applicable to crack cocaine quantity levels. 

Johnson concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United

States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). In Moore, we held that

defendants who were originally sentenced under § 4B1.1(b)’s career offender table

were not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief because their guideline ranges were not

based on the drug quantity offense levels which Amendment 706 had lowered. 

See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-30 (concluding “[w]here a retroactively applicable

guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter

the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does

not authorize a reduction in sentence”). 

The district court did not err when it denied Johnson’s motion to modify his

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court lacked the authority to

2
modify Johnson’s sentence because Johnson was sentenced as a career offender,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and Amendment 750 did not have the effect of

lowering Johnson’s guideline range.

AFFIRMED.

3
#### WELCOME G. HITCHCOCK AND ELAM O. POTTER, Respondents, *v.*JULIUS BAERE AND LOUIS BAERE, Appellants.

*Amending a complaint in an action to recoven' for goods sold*— *by stnilAng out certain allegations as to fraudmlent representations made by the purchaser*— *does not change the cause of action.*

Appeal from an order denying a motion to stay the entry of a judgment herein.

*605The plaintiffs, in the original complaint, alleged that tbey were induced to sell and deliver to the defendants merchandize to the amount of $279.60, by false and fraudulent representations, made by the latter, with intent to deceive and defraud the plaintiffs.

Within the time allowed for that purpose the complaint was amended by striking out the allegations of fraud, so as to leave it in form an action for the recovery of a sum due for goods sold and delivered.

The 'defendants’ attorneys returned the amended complaint, on the ground that the entire cause of action was sought to be changed by it, and because it set up an entirely different cause of action. They omitted to serve an answer to the amended complaint and judgment was taken against them.

The court at General Term said: “The order made was not erroneous. The allegations of fraud were entirely unnecessary to maintain an action for goods sold and delivered; indeed, they were unnecessary for any purpose. If the plaintiffs desired to predicate of them the provisional remedy of arrest, it was not necessary that they should be stated in the complaint. They could be averred by affidavit; striking them out of the complaint, therefore, by amendment, was withdrawing from it redundant matter which was not at all necessary’ for their success.

“ The defendants’ counsel were mistaken, therefore, in supposing that the cause of action was changed, or that a different cause of action was set out from that originally brought, and are equally mistaken in supposing that the appeal from the order made upon the state of facts suggested can be sustained.

*Blumenstiel &*Hirsch, for the appellants. *Thomas B.*Oddi, for the respondents.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*

Present — Brady, P. J., and INGALLS, J.,

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of I/OMagic
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to their knowledge:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: August 13, 2007          By: /s/ Tony Shahbaz
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Tony Shahbaz
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (principal executive officer)


Dated: August 13, 2007          By: /s/ Thomas L. Gruber
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Thomas L. Gruber
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal financial officer)

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4905 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4905

                   For the relief of Floyd L. Martin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1994

  Mr. Saxton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Floyd L. Martin.

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

SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASE FOR PURPOSES OF RADIATION EXPOSURE 
              COMPENSATION ACT.

    For the purpose of determining the eligibility of Floyd L. Martin 
of Cherry Hill, New Jersey for payment under the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note), malignant melanoma of the eye 
shall be considered to be a specified disease referred to in section 
4(b)(2) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit99.1**

 

Interactive Intelligence, Inc.

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interactive Intelligence,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Dr. Donald E. Brown, Chairman of the Board, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss. 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Donald E. Brown                                           |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald E. Brown,                                              |
| Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive  Officer |
| November 14, 2002                                             |

 

----