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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra,

 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

February 7, 2011 

s0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141756 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141756 

 COA: 298867 

Kalkaska CC: 08-002967-FC 

LESTER HARVEY VANDENBOSCH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 32.1 - Certification of the Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Axeda  Systems Inc.  required  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                            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 Quarterly  Report of Axeda Systems Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period  ended  June 30,  2004,  as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  August  16,  2004 (the  Report),  the
undersigned,  Robert M. Russell Jr.,  Chairman of the Board and Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company and Thomas J. Fogarty, 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, 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.

By:     /s/ Robert M. Russell Jr.
        ----------------------------
        Robert M. Russell Jr.
        Chairman of the Board and
         Chief Executive Officer
        August 16, 2004

By:     /s/ Thomas J. Fogarty
        ----------------------------
        Thomas J. Fogarty
        Executive Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer
        August 16, 2004


This  certification  is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to Axeda  Systems Inc. and will be retained by Axeda Systems Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
(Reap. Dec. 10393)

Entry Nos. 5902; 5041.

#### Household Mfg. Co. *v.*United States

(Decided December 10, 1962)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. CJuilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases consists of various kitchen items such as can openers, spatulas, *483etc., and that, at the time of its exportation to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoiced unit values, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule, to wit, various kitchen items such as can openers, spatulas, etc., is not included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, *70*Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in the attached schedule, and that such value is represented by the invoiced unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1857

In Re: RAKIM ROYSTER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:08-hc-02079-D)

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rakim Royster, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rakim Royster petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6132

MAURICE STEWART, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-03-1227-AM) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          85,960
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       118,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     (204,690)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (49,965)
<SALES>                                        (204,690)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               35,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (35,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (35,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (35,995)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.0)



</TABLE>
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/22/2023 1

Injunction Against Armed Monitoring 

of Polling Places by a Private Entity 

Council on American–Islamic Relations—Minnesota 

v. Atlas Aegis (Nancy E. Brasel, D. Minn. 0:20-cv-2195) 

A district judge entered a preliminary injunction against a private 

organization, forbidding the intimidation of voters by deploying 

armed agents at polling places. 

Subject: Polling-place activities. Topic: Early voting. 

Two organizations filed a federal complaint in the District of Minnesota on 

October 20, 2020, alleging that the defendant organization “and an unnamed 

‘consortium’ of individuals and businesses are deploying armed ex-soldiers to 

intimidate and threaten eligible voters.”1 With their complaint, the plaintiffs 

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Nancy E. Brasel set the case for a videoconference hearing at 3:00 

p.m. six days later, posting contact information in the public docket sheet.3

 On 

the morning of October 26, Judge Brasel checked for settlement among the 

parties and found none.4

On October 29, Judge Brasel enjoined the defendants from “deploying 

armed agents within 2,500 feet of Minnesota polling places or otherwise monitoring Minnesota polling places.”5

 Judge Brasel approved a consent decree on 

February 16, 2021.6

1. Complaint, Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn. v. Atlas Aegis LLC, No. 0:20-cv2195 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2020), D.E. 1; Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn. v. Atlas 

Aegis LLC, 497 F. Supp. 3d 371, 375 (D. Minn. 2020). 

2. Motion, Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn., No. 0:20-cv-2195 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 

2020), D.E. 4; Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn., 497 F. Supp. 3d at 375. 

3. Docket Sheet, Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn., No. 0:20-cv-2195 (D. Minn. 

Oct. 20, 2020) (D.E. 20); see Minutes, id. (Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 38; Notice, id. (Oct. 26, 2020), 

D.E. 18. 

4. Minutes, id. (Oct. 26, 2020), D.E. 34. 

5. Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn., 497 F. Supp. 3d at 381. 

6. Order, Council on Am.–Islamic Relations—Minn., No. 0:20-cv-2195 (D. Minn. Feb. 16, 

2021), D.E. 61; see Proposed Consent Decree, id. (Feb. 3, 2021), D.E. 57 (proscribing the defendant’s deployment of armed agents near election activities).
dixie_ex1001.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

     

    
 

    July 9,
2008

    


    TO:                      DIXIE
LEE INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.

    


    


    AND
TO:            The
Directors thereof

    


    


    I, DAVID SILVESTER, do hereby
resign my office as Vice-President of the above Corporation, such resignation to
take effect forthwith.

    


    DATED the 7th day of
July, 2008

    


    


    By: /s/ David
Silvester

    


    


    TO:                      DIXIE
LEE INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.

    


    


    AND
TO:            The
Directors thereof

    


    


    I, DAVID SILVESTER, do hereby
resign my office as director of the above Corporation, such resignation to take
effect forthwith.

    


    DATED the 7th day of
July, 2008

    


    


    By: /s/ David
Silvester
No. 53982.

#### Indo American Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 146378-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Second Division,

June 25, 1941

No. 46117.

#### Protest 969959-G of Saji Trading Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

There was testimony that these articles are used to ■cover lamp shades or as sun shades at the beach or in the garden. The evidence, including the sample, was held not sufficient to overcome the classification as hats under paragraph 1504 (b) (2). The protest was therefore overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9323-9324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3602]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-176-000]


Trailblazer Pipeline Company; Notice of Revenue Crediting Report

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Trailblazer Pipeline Company 
(Trailblazer) tendered for filing its Penalty Revenue Report.
    Trailblazer states the purpose of this filing is to inform the 
Commission that Trailblazer collected no penalty revenues in the 
quarter ended December 31, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated 
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or 
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve 
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fd9dacddcd0f1f3f6f1facceaefeff0edebdff9faedfcb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22646770616d4c4e4b4c47715752524d505662444750410c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 9324]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time March 2, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3602 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the Third Division,

May 22, 1957

No. 60782.

#### Paul A. Straub & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 283720-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Quivira National Wildlife Refuge:bird list.**
 
2003 | 2008| 2011 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.44/2:Q 4/5/
Item Number:0612-C (online)
CGP systemNumber:000970733
 
February 11, 2020
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

BNFY 601117v1 -1- (CIV-S-04-01026 GEB KJM) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT GAETANO TAIBI 

Alan J. Kessel (Cal. Bar No.: 130707)

Keli N. Osaki (Cal. Bar No.: 179920) 

Sandeep J. Shah (Cal. Bar No.: 210449) 

BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER 

A Professional Corporation 

18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 

Irvine, California 92612-0514 

Telephone: (949) 760-1121 

Facsimile: (949) 720-0182 

Attorneys for Plaintiff DIRECTV, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GAETANO TAIBI, 

Defendant. 

Case No. CIV-S-04-01026 GEB KJM 

Hon. Garland E. Burrell 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT GAETANO TAIBI 

Having read the Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant GAETANO TAIBI 

filed herein by Plaintiff DIRECTV, Inc., and such other pleadings and papers deemed appropriate 

by the Court, and GOOD CAUSE appearing therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

1. This action is hereby dismissed without prejudice as against Defendant 

GAETANO TAIBI only; 

2. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action to 

date; and 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-01026-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

BNFY 601117v1 -2- (CIV-S-04-01026 GEB KJM) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT GAETANO TAIBI 

3. As Defendant GAETANO TAIBI is the last remaining active Defendant in this 

action, this entire action as to all remaining claims is hereby terminated in full. 

DATED: July 22, 2005 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01026-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Commonwealth, *v.*Bandel, Appellant.

*Criminal law*— Vending *narcotic drugs*— Evidence—Sufficiency.

In the trial of an indictment charging the defendant with possessing and selling narcotics, a verdict of guilty will be sustained, where the evidence produced by the Commonwealth was sufficient to warrant a conviction and the case was submitted to the jury in a charge of the court which was free from error.

Argued April 14, 1924.

Appeals, Nos. 81, 82 and 83, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of O. and T. and Q. S., Phila; Co., July Sessions, 1923, Nos. 467, 468 and 469, on verdict of guilty in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Simon Bandel.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Indictment for possession and sale of narcotic drugs. Before McMichael, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict of guilty on which judgment of sentence was passed.

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence and refusal to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant.

*Herbert W. Salus,*for appellant.

*74
      *Lemuel B. Schofield,*and with him *Warren C. Graham,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Samuel P. Rotan,*District Attorney, for appellee.

July 2, 1924:

Per Curiam,

Simon Bandel was convicted on an indictment in several counts charging him with possessing and selling to named persons, a narcotic (heroin) contrary to the statute. He complains (1) that an acquittal was not directed; and (2) that certain drugs were admitted in evidence.

The appeal is without merit. There was evidence from which the jury could find that appellant possessed and dealt in the drug quite extensively, not alone, but even with the aid of others; that he assisted in moving the drugs (which he contends should not have been received in evidence) from the house of one confederate to the house of another; there is no dispute about the identity of the drug received in evidence, as his counsel frankly admitted at the oral argument; the evidence was submitted to the jury by an impartial charge of which no complaint is made.

The judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the court below and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed when the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.
Exhibit 13.1

                            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 Israel Bank of  Agriculture  Ltd. (the
"Bank") on Form 20-F/A for the period ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  We, Lea
Patalovsky,  General  Manager  of the Bank,  and Yakov  Cohen,  Chief  Financial
Officer of the Bank,  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 Bank.

August 21, 2006

Lea Patalovsky
General Manager


/s/ Lea Patalovsky
----------------------

Yakov Cohen
Chief Financial Officer


/s/ Yakov Cohen
----------------------