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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, 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.

 October 17, 2019

t1010

Order 

Clerk

October 17, 2019

158259 & (61)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158259

COA: 336187 

Allegan CC: 14-018862-FC

ANTHONY RAY McFARLANE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the August 7, 2018 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the 

application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing: (1) whether the prosecution’s medical expert invaded the province of 

the jury by using phrases like “abusive head trauma” and “definite pediatric physical 

abuse” to label her diagnosis; and (2) if so, whether the defendant has satisfied the plain 

error standard set forth in People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 (1999). In addition to the 

brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). 

In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required 

by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of 

being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an 

appendix or, in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant.

A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the 

appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application 

papers.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, the Innocence Network, and the 

Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. 

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
---

Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael R. Cunningham, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: May 13, 2010
/s/ Michael R. CunninghamMichael R. CunninghamChief Financial OfficerPrincipal Financial Officer
No. 66164.

#### D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/1302(B) (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S.A., et al.*(45 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12229]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “The Cyrus Cylinder” at the Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven, Connecticut, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-23264 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
A89A2176.

#### OSWALD v. AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN COMPANY.

(392 SE2d 26)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Until February 28, 1987, appellant-plaintiff was employed by appellee-defendant. Although Federal law required that appellee furnish appellant a W-2 form by January 31, 1988, she did not receive such a form from appellee by that date. Alleging that appellee had willfully refused to provide the W-2 form to her in a timely manner, appellant filed suit. According to appellant’s complaint, appellee’s alleged willful refusal constituted “the violation of a legal duty owed to [her], which supports a tort action under the laws of the State of Georgia.” Appellee answered appellant’s complaint and subsequently moved for *883summary judgment. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee.

Decided March 2, 1990

Rehearing denied March 15, 1990

*S. Robert Hahn, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Dara L. Dehaven, E. A. Simpson, Jr., Bret J. Pangborn, Frederick A. Stuart,*for appellee.

The only “duty” to provide a timely W-2 form to appellant is that which is imposed upon appellee by the Federal Internal Revenue Code. The willful breach of that duty can result in criminal liability. 26 USCA §§ 6674; 7204. “[T]he violation of a penal statute does not automatically give rise to a civil cause of action on the part of one who is injured thereby.” *Sparks v. Thurmond,*171 Ga. App. 138, 142 (5) (319 SE2d 46) (1984). An employer’s alleged willful breach of the penal provisions of the Federal Internal Revenue Code regarding the timely provision of a W-2 form will not support an employee’s civil action for damages. *Turner v. Unification Church,*473 FSupp. 367, 376 (19) (D. R.I. 1978), aff’d 602 F2d 458 (1st Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
Before Judge Ford,

May 10, 1967

No. R67/71.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R59/14087 (Jacksonville).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Kurt Orban Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the galvanized wire and round steel wire in issue and that said value is the appraised value, less inland freight and f .o.b. charges of $11 per metric ton.
No. 54463.

#### Fabrics by Joyce et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144856-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 64679.

#### Nordic Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/10557 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C.D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### OFFICE **OF THE**  **A-I-TORN- GENERAL**  **6f TEXAS**  **AUSTIN** GROVER **SELLERS** ATmRNE* oENlm*l.

. : : 

### prlvllag6d to tixmsP4r liquor fxan ~ttuo2-i &or 0 

# to ais oth6r lloeutmd pxwmltteta 

# uxier 8uobxul~ea8 &be ::

. . i . : , -‘. *. ”



### IionoraULsEsrtFord~lkvp3

.: ,., : 8~ :: :_ .,’

. :_

.. .

\,, 

### ~pixi-c~~& Peb. P 

# x946 . . St Carl08

Cb A&y. '-. First Am5l&aut -AttoPney 

# Qtmt$'al. 1 ; .” / .,. . . .:

. . i

. .:
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (4)(f)

                  FORM OF SURRENDER CHARGE MODIFICATION RIDER
                               (LIQUIDITY RIDER)

<PAGE>

WESTERN RESERVE LIFE                                      Administrative Office:
ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO                                    4333 Edgewood Road N.E.
A Stock Company                                         Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499
(Hereafter called the Company, We, Our or Us)                     (319) 398-8511
Home Office: Columbus, Ohio

                       SURRENDER CHARGE MODIFICATION RIDER

We issued this rider as a part of the policy to which it is attached.

The following language replaces the Surrender Charges provision in Section 6 of
Your policy:

SURRENDER CHARGES

Amounts withdrawn in excess of the surrender charge-free amount specified herein
are subject to a surrender charge. The amount of this charge, if any, will be a
percentage, as shown in the table below, of the amount of premium withdrawn:

Number of Years
 Since Premium     Percentage of
 Payment Date     Premium Withdrawn
---------------   -----------------
         0-1            8.5%
         1-2              8%
         2-3              7%
         3-4              6%
   5 or more              0%

For Surrender Charge purposes, all earnings are considered to be withdrawn
first. After all earnings are withdrawn then the oldest premium payment is the
first premium payment considered to be withdrawn. If the amount withdrawn
exceeds this, the next oldest premium payment is considered to be withdrawn, and
so on until the most recent premium payments are deemed to be withdrawn (the
procedure being applied to Withdrawals of premium is a "First-in, First-Out" or
FIFO procedure).

For surrender charge purposes, all earnings are considered to be withdrawn
first. After all earnings are withdrawn then the oldest premium payment is the
first premium payment considered to be withdrawn. If the amount withdrawn
exceeds the earnings plus the oldest premium payment, the next oldest premium
payment is considered to be withdrawn, and so on until the most recent premium
payments are deemed to be withdrawn (the procedure being applied to Partial
Withdrawals of premium is a "First-In, First-Out" or FIFO procedure).

                        Signed for Us at our Home Office.

         /s/ William H. Geiger                     /s/ Jerome C. Vahl
       -------------------------               -------------------------
               SECRETARY                               PRESIDENT
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 266 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 266

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2000

Received and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the benefits of music 
                               education.

Whereas there is a growing body of scientific research demonstrating that 
        children who receive music instruction perform better on spatial-
        temporal reasoning tests and proportional math problems;
Whereas music education grounded in rigorous instruction is an important 
        component of a well-rounded academic program;
Whereas opportunities in music and the arts have enabled children with 
        disabilities to participate more fully in school and community 
        activities;
Whereas music and the arts can motivate at-risk students to stay in school and 
        become active participants in the educational process;
Whereas according to the College Board, college-bound high school seniors in 
        1998 who received music instruction scored 53 points higher on the 
        verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and 39 points higher on 
        the math portion of the test than college-bound high school seniors with 
        no music or arts instruction;
Whereas a 1999 report by the Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse states 
        that individuals who participated in band or orchestra reported the 
        lowest levels of current and lifelong use of alcohol, tobacco, and 
        illicit drugs; and
Whereas comprehensive, sequential music instruction enhances early brain 
        development and improves cognitive and communicative skills, self-
        discipline, and creativity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) music education enhances intellectual development and 
        enriches the academic environment for children of all ages; and
            (2) music educators greatly contribute to the artistic, 
        intellectual, and social development of American children, and 
        play a key role in helping children to succeed in school.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 13, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
No. 67232.

protests 61/18004 and 61/23112 (San Francisco).

#### Westwood Import Co. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States,

*314Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code

I, Timothy P. Dimond, the Chief Financial Officer of Technology Solutions
Company, certify that:



| | (i)  |  | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 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 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Technology Solutions
Company.

|                  |  |     |  |                                               | 
|----------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: May 5, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ TIMOTHY P. DIMOND                         | 
|                  |  |     |  |                                               | 
|                  |  |     |  | Timothy P. Dimond
    Chief Financial Officer | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Technology Solutions Company and will
be retained by Technology Solutions Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Page 29
```

[111th Congress Public Law 75]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 2081]]

Public Law 111-75
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue 
   in El Paso, Texas, as the ``Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States 
          Courthouse''. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 2009 -  [H.R. 2053]>> 

    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 courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue in El 
Paso, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Albert Armendariz, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Albert 
Armendariz, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

    Approved October 19, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2053:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-241 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Sept. 9, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

September 17, 1958

No. 62340.

#### New England Coal & Wood Co. *v.*United States,

protest 322625-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                     Subsidiaries of New West Eyeworks, Inc.


Alexis Holdings, Inc.

Vista Eyecare Network, LLC
In the Senate of the United States,

May 9, 2000.

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 314) entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a bike

rodeo to be conducted by the Earth Force Youth Bike Summit.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

1 Page 3, line 9, after ‘‘sales,’’ insert advertisements,

Attest:

Secretary.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 314

AMENDMENT
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Ugly Duckling Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 333-31531) filed as of July 18,
1997, as amended by pre-effective amendment no. 1 to Form S-3 filed as of July
30, 1997; Form S-3 (File No. 333-22237) filed as post-effective amendment No. 2
to Form S-1 as of July 18, 1997; Form S-8 (File No. 333-32313) for Ugly
Duckling Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan filed as of July 29, 1997; Form
S-8 (File No. 333-08457) for Ugly Duckling Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan
filed as of July 19, 1996; Form S-8 (File No. 333-06615) for Ugly Duckling
Corporation Director Incentive Plan filed as of June 21, 1996 of our report
dated February 10, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ugly
Duckling Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, 
which report is included in this Report on Form 8-K of Ugly Duckling 
Corporation.




                                                      
                                                     /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Phoenix, Arizona
February 20, 1998
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24
- 1547

In re: MARIE A. BECTON , Petitioner.

On Petition for W rit of M andamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh . ( 5:21

- cv - 00449

- D )

Submitted : August 8, 2024 Decided: August 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marie A. Becton, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1547 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Marie A. Becton petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to grant her the relief she requested in her dismissed complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security . We conclude that Becton is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Becton is not available by way of mandamus. Becton had an adequate means

— a direct appeal

— to attain the relief she desires. In fact, she did appeal the district court’s dismissal of her complaint, but she did so too late. She cannot cure her failure to note a timely appeal through this petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 24-1547 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05344-RBL Document 22 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05344-RBL Document 22 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2