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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

September 27, 2010 

d0920 

Order 

 

September 27, 2010 

137412 

FRANKLIN ALLEY and JANET ALLEY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 137412 

 COA: 283634 

Gladwin CC: 07-003343-NH 

FRANK SECK, D.O., and CEDAR AVENUE 

FAMILY PRACTICE, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of May 7, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the August 22, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Holman v 

Rasak (Docket No. 137993). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 

13, 2010, 486 Mich 429 (2010), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 

7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of 

Appeals for consideration as on leave granted in light of Holman, supra. 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
Before the Second Division,

August 3, 1949

No. 53445.

protest 47655-K (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all materia] respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
No. 68653.

protests 59/26479, etc. (New York).

#### Durex Hardware Mfg. Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprinklers or sprinkler tops similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 64766.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/16394 (Niagara Falls).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Proposed Rule: Deferred Reporting of Certain Data Elements under the GHG Reporting Rule

Meeting Documentation: American Chemistry Council 3/9/11

Date Staff Contact Information Name of Organization Summary of Discussion Written Comments 

Provided?

Did they also submit to 

Docket?

Date 

sent to

EPACCD

3/9/11 Jessica Gordon

Gordon.jessica@epa.gov

Bill Irving

Irving.bill@epa.gov

Amy Branning

Branning.amy@epa.gov

Jennifer Bohman

Bohman.jennifer@epa.gov

Deborah Ottinger

Ottinger.deborah@epa.gov

Tom Land

Land.tom@epa.gov

Lorraine Gershman, ACC

Jim Griffin, ACC

Leslie Hulse, ACC

Brendan Mascarenhas, ACC

David DiMarcello, BASF

Bob Reich, DuPont

Karen Murphy, Ashland

Shari Keller, Shell

Mike Witt, Dow*

Al McMahon, SABIC*

Gary Rabik, Braskem*

Mike Vancil, LANXESS*

Mark Hall, InEnTec*

*participated via phone

1. What EPA is doing to 

ensure that all reporters can 

get the emission data 

submitted by March 31 

2. Any outstanding 

registration problems with eGGRT

3. Next steps on CBI 

4. When EPA expects to 

publicly release the emissions 

data, and how such data will 

be presented to the public

5. What EPA plans to do with 

all of the collected data

Submitted to Docket 

N/A
Case 2:04-cr-00109-BMS Document 51 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned,Rodger Weismann, Chief Financial Officer of Phase Forward Incorporated (the “Company”),in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, hereby certifies pursuant to therequirements of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

·       theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

·       theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Thiscertification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to bedeemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purposewhatsoever.
| By:    |     | /s/ RODGER  WEISMANN                             |
|--------|----------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |     | Rodger Weismann                                  |
|   | * * | *Chief Financial Officer*                        |
|   |     | Phase Forward Incorporated  August 10, 2005 |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 744 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 744

Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Lunar New Year 
                                in 2018.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2018

  Ms. Meng (for herself, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Al Green of 
 Texas, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Crowley, 
 Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Velazquez, 
 Mr. Peters, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Takano, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. 
Speier, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Hanabusa) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Lunar New Year 
                                in 2018.

Whereas Lunar New Year begins on the second new moon following the winter 
        solstice, or the first day of the new year according to the lunisolar 
        calendar, and extends until the full moon 15 days later;
Whereas the 15th day of the new year, according to the lunisolar calendar, is 
        called the Lantern Festival;
Whereas Lunar New Year is often referred to as Spring Festival in various Asian 
        countries;
Whereas many religious and ethnic communities use lunar-based calendars;
Whereas Lunar New Year began in China more than 4,000 years ago and is widely 
        celebrated in East and Southeast Asia;
Whereas the Asian diaspora has expanded the Lunar New Year celebration into an 
        annual worldwide event;
Whereas Lunar New Year is celebrated by millions of Asian Americans, and by many 
        non-Asian Americans, in the United States;
Whereas Lunar New Year is celebrated with community activities and cultural 
        performances;
Whereas participants celebrating Lunar New Year travel to spend the holiday 
        reuniting with family and friends; and
Whereas Lunar New Year is traditionally a time to wish upon others good fortune, 
        health, prosperity, and happiness: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the cultural and historical significance of 
        Lunar New Year;
            (2) in observance of this Lunar New Year, the Year of the 
        Dog, expresses its deepest respect for Asian Americans and all 
        individuals throughout the world who celebrate this significant 
        occasion; and
            (3) wishes Asian Americans and all individuals who observe 
        this holiday a happy and prosperous new year.
                                 <all>
```
Case No. 13,079a.

#### SMITH v. MILES.

[Hempst. 34.] 2

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

Oct., 1825.

Constables — Liabilitt fob Trespass — Regularity op Writ — Malice—Proper Action.

1. If the subject-matter is within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and the execution regular on its face, the officer executing the same cannot be *held*liable as a trespasser.

2. No person acting under a regular writ or warrant can be liable in trespass, however malicious his conduct; but case for the malicious motive, and want of probable cause for the proceeding, is the only sustainable form of action.

3. In such a case, a motion is not the proper remedy to reach the officer executing the writ.

[This was an action by Benjamin L. Miles against Henry L. Smith to recover moneys illegally collected.]

OPINION OP

THE COURT.

This was a motion made in the Chicot circuit court by Miles against Smith, as constable of Oden *603township, -to compel him to refund money collected from Miles. Andrew Latting obtained judgment against Miles before Thomas James, a justice of the peace of Oden township, which was taken to the Chicot circuit court by certiorari; and pending the writ of certiorari, the justice issued execution, delivered it to Smith to execute, which he did do, so far as to make the costs; and this is the money prayed to be refunded, and judgment was rendered for the purpose. It is not shown that Smith, the officer, had any knowledge of the existence of the certio-rari; and under this state of case, Smith’s counsel contend that he is not liable at all, but, if so, not by motion; and this we hold is a correct position. If the subject-matter is within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, and the execution is regular on its face, the constable cannot be liable as a trespasser. 1 Chit. Pl. 210; Wise v. Withers, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 331; 8 Johns. 45. This case falls within that rule, as far as we can judge from the record.

If Smith had knowledge of the certiorari, and acted maliciously, he might be liable to an action on the .case for such malicious conduct. In speaking of the action of trespass, it is said, that “no person who acts upon a regular writ or warrant can be liable in this action, however malicious his conduct; but case for the malicious motive, and. want of probable cause for the proceeding, is the only sustainable form of action.” 1 Chit. Pl. 214; 1 Strange, 509; 2 Term R. 653; 6 Term R. 245; Willes, 32. There is no pretence that Smith acted with a malicious intention, and therefore could not be liable in case (1 Chit. Pl. 152); and we have seen is not liable in trespass. Can it, then, be seriously contended, that if not liable in any form of action, he could be held responsible on motion? Supposing Smith, however, to have.acted maliciously, it is a question of fact to be tried by a jury, and not by motion, the latter remedy being founded on the record alone, except in a few cases under the statute, and provided for by statute, to prevent the delay and costs of a regular suit, and which does not usually admit of a trial of disputed facts. Judgment reversed.
Case No. 6,653.

#### HOMANS v. COOMBE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 681.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1826.

Attachment — Execution —J udgment — Surprise.

The court will set aside a judgment against the garnishee, obtained at a former term by surprise, and will quash the execution thereon issued.

*444[In Case No. 0.654. in an action against the garnishee, the plaintiff was nonsuited.)

This was an attachment issued by way of ■execution upon a judgment against Mr. Zant-zinger, and the marshal returned that he had “attached credits in the hands of Griffith ■Coombe, and summoned him as garnishee in the presence of” D. B. and B. O. T., July 28, 1824. At the return of the writ, Mr. Coombe, the garnishee, being called, and not appearing, judgment of condemnation was rendered against him at December term, 1824, for the whole amount due from the defendant, Mr. Zantzinger. The writ of attachment issued under the act of assembly of Maryland of 1715 (chapter 40) does not state .any particular sum as being in the hands of the garnishee, nor does it even name a garnishee. It ■commands the sheriff to attach the goods, chattels, and credits of the defendant to the value of the debt, and have them before the court at the return of the writ, to be condemned to, and for the use of, the plaintiff [Daniel Homans), unless the defendant shall show cause to the contrary; and to make known to the person in whose hands or possession the goods, chattels, and credits shall be attached, to be and appear at the court, at the return day of the writ, to show cause why the same should not be condemned, and execution thereof had as in other cases of recovery and judgment. B3' the 4th section of the act it is provided, “that no sheriff shall levy, by way of execution as aforesaid, against the said garnishee or garnishees, any more than the plaintiff’s debt and costs, nor against any garnishee or garnishees, than what the said plaintiff in the said action shall make appear to the said respective courts, to be of the said goods, chattels, and credits of the said defendant in each respective garnishee •or garnishees’ hands, together with such costs only as the garnishee or garnishees shall put the plaintiff to, by denying him or themselves to be indebted to such defendant, and contesting the same.” At the time of the judgment against Mr. Coombe, the garnishee, there was no evidence before the court to make appear what goods, chattels, or credits were in his hands.

Mr. Key now moved to set aside the judgment against Mr. Coombe. as having been obtained irregularly and by surprise; and produced the affidavit of Mr. Coombe, denying that he ever had any money or property of the defendant in his hands or possession; that knowing that fact, and believing that no person could aver or prove that he had, and that no judgment could be rendered against him without proof, he thought it unnecessary to take any steps for his defence, and the subject passed out of his mind, &e. There were also other corroborating affidavits.

THE COURT,

at a subsequent term, set aside the judgment against the garnishee, as having been obtained by surprise, and quashed the execution.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 878 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2018 

Mr. CROWLEY submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

Whereas the tradition of the House Chaplain dates to the 

earliest days of the House of Representatives, beginning 

in 1789; 

Whereas the role of House Chaplain has been filled by sixty 

individuals of various religious denominations, serving 

Members of Congress of all faiths; 

Whereas Father Patrick Conroy has served honorably as 

House Chaplain since May 25, 2011, when he was appointed by then-Speaker John A. Boehner in consultation 

with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; 

Whereas Father Conroy had been re-appointed and elected by 

the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, 

most recently January 3, 2017; 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 878 LTH 

Whereas on April 16, 2018, the nation’s first Jesuit—and 

only the second Catholic—Chaplain of the U.S. House of 

Representatives submitted his resignation before the full 

House; 

Whereas the Chaplain had only eight months remaining in 

his term of service to the House; 

Whereas this resignation was requested by the office of Paul 

D. Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives; 

Whereas the Speaker’s office said ‘‘. . . the decision (to remove the Chaplain) was his (Speaker Ryan’s);’’ 

Whereas on May 3, 2018, Father Conroy submitted a letter 

retracting and rescinding his resignation, which was accepted by Speaker Ryan; 

Whereas despite the Speaker’s statement accepting this retraction letter, a number of Members of Congress remain 

concerned about what motivated the original request for 

Father Conroy to resign and the lack of adequate notification or explanation given to Members; 

Whereas the rights of Members of the House of Representatives were undermined when the leader of one party made 

a unilateral decision to ask for the resignation of the 

Chaplain; 

Whereas this resignation and the circumstances behind it has 

compromised the integrity and the dignity of the House 

of Representatives by politicizing the office of the House 

Chaplain: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) There is hereby established a select com3 mittee to investigate the circumstances around the 

4 resignation of the House Chaplain. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 878 LTH 

1 (2) The select committee shall be comprised of 

2 six members, of which three shall be appointed by 

3 the Chair of the Committee on Ethics, and three by 

4 the Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics. 

5 (3) The select committee shall investigate the 

6 motivations and actions that led to the resignation 

7 of the Chaplain, including the decisions to remove 

8 the Chaplain and the process by which Members of 

9 Congress were notified of the resignation. 

10 (4) The select committee shall provide a report 

11 to the House by July 13, 2018. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00153-CR

Stephen Petty John

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-03318-CRF-272

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 21, 2022
Exhibit 23



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERERD PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors
GrandSouth Bancorporation

We consent to the  incorporation by reference to the  Registration  Statement of
GrandSouth  Bancorporation on Form S-8 relating to the GrandSouth Bancorporation
1998 Stock  Option  Plan (File no.  333-129580),  of our report  dated March 21,
2007, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of GrandSouth  Bancorporation
and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated  statements
of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the
year then ended, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of GrandSouth
Bancorporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.


                                     s/ Elliott Davis, LLC

Greenville, South Carolina
March 28, 2007
No. 61726.

#### Hugh P. Brady and Norman G. Jensen, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 166164-K, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Inthe Matter of: ORIGINAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Served: February 3, 2014 FDMS No.: FAA-2013-0284 

# RECEIVED FEB 142014 HEARING DOCKET

_A_v1_· a-=ti-"'on=-=E=n""gi=nc:..ee-'--r---'in...,g'--C-'--o=n=s-"u=lt'-"an"-'t"-'s,--"I=nc'-.---' Administrative Law Judge: J. E. Sullivan
COMPLAINANT'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDED COMPLAINT The Complainant inthis matter, the Federal Aviation Administration, by counsel, hereby files its notice ofwithdrawal ofits Amended Complaint filed on July 30,2013. This matter has beenresolved through the timely payment onthe party ofthe Respondent Company ofan agreed upon civil penalty. WHEREFORE, the Complainant, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Administrative LawJudge enter an order terminating the proceedings inthis matterfor the
reason stated herein. Dated this 3'ct day ofFebruary 2014 Respectfully submitted, A. Lester Haizlip Regional Counsel By:

Senior Enforcement Attorney Federal AviationAdministration 901 Locust St., Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 816-329-3765; Fax (816) 329-3771 ATTORNEY FOR COMPLAINANT2 In the Matter ofAviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. FDMS No. FAA-2013-0284

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date provided a copy ofthe FAA's Notice ofWithdrawal oflts Amended Complaint viathe methods listed below, to: Mr. Kamran Rouhani Aviation Engineering Consultants, Inc. 2750 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, FL 33759 (Copy via regular mail) Douglas J. Barnard, Esq. Plane Law 14695 Airport Parkway, Suite 6 Clearwater, FL 33762 (Copy via regular mail) The Honorable J. E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 FAX: (202) 366-7536 (Copy via fax; hard copy via regular mail) Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 (Original and one copy via regular mail)
Datedthis 3'd day ofFebruary 2014.

.

# I**/'~J**


## . / "'f/

/f/};;/ ffi(l; /,1;' d. / ;", 

### ---- -- Mark taffiacho /Senior Enforcement Attorney !
# C_2015138EN.01006102.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/61

---

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)

(Case T-102/15)

(2015/C 138/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 9 4 17  668

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 2036/2013-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations established by the Court of Justice under Community law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations established by the Court of Justice under Community law.

---