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 21, 2020

t1014

Order 

Clerk

October 21, 2020

160614 & (70)(75)(76)(77)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160614

COA: 322891

Oakland CC: 2013-244355-FC

JONATHAN DEWIG HICKERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions to add additional grounds for appeal are 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2019 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals and the motion to remand are considered and, it appearing to this Court 

that the case of Jones v Mississippi, cert gtd ___ US ___; 140 S Ct 1293; 206 L Ed 2d 

374 (March 9, 2020) (Docket No. 18-1259), is pending on appeal before the United 

States Supreme Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the 

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application and motion to 

remand be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. The motion to hold 

consideration of the application in abeyance for People v Masalmani (Docket No. 

154773) is DENIED as moot.
Exhibit
32.2
 
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)
 
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the
undersigned, Thomas Hagan, the Chief Financial Officer of Patient Portal
Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify,
to his knowledge, that:
 
 The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of the Company
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Thomas
      HaganTHOMAS
      HAGANChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      13, 2008
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1390 LKK EFB P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 8, 2006, motion for

appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: September 14, 2006.

/mp

davi1390.31

Case 2:04-cv-01390-LKK -EFB Document 42 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99(ii)

                                Certification of
                     Jan Pasternack, Chief Financial Officer
                        of Titanium Holdings Group, Inc.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the "Form 10-QSB")
for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 of Titanium Holdings Group, Inc. (the
"Issuer"). I, Jan Pasternack, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify
that, to the best of my knowledge:
     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.
Dated:  August 14, 2002.

                                                    /s/ Jan Pasternack
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Jan Pasternack

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 14th day of August, 2002.


    /s/ Joel Leder
---------------------------------------
Name:   Joel Leder
     ----------------------------------
Title: Notary Public

My commission expires: 12/31/2005
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, ETC.

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY 

WILLIAM A. GOULD (SBN 035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Tel: (916) 441-2430 

Fax: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants, THE FIRM OF JOHN 

DICKINSON SCHNEIDER, INC., HOLLISTER 

INCORPORATED, SAMUEL P. BRILLIANT, 

RICHARD I. FREMGEN, DONALD K. GRONEBERG, 

CHARLES H. GUNDERSON, ALAN F. HERBERT, 

JAMES A. KARLOVSKY, LORI J. KELLEHER, 

JAMES J. MCCORMACK, CHARLES C. 

SCHELLENTRAGER, HOWARD I. SIMON, LORETTA 

L. STEMPINSKI, MICHAEL C. WINN and RICHARD 

T. ZWIRNER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER, INC.; et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

[Consolidated Master Case Number] 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 

REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, FOR 

THE FILING OF DISPOSITIVE 

MOTIONS, AND EXTENDING THE 

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE DATE 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: July 15, 2004 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV. S-05-559 WBS GGH 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: March 22, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 426 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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 

-2- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, ETC. 

BRENDA DIMARO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV. S-05-1726 WBS GGH 

Judge: William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: August 25, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 426 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, ETC.

Pursuant to the parties’ “Stipulation Regarding Extension of Time to 

Complete Discovery, for the Filing Of Dispositive Motions, and to Reset the PreTrial Conference Date”, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The discovery cut-off date in these consolidated actions is hereby 

extended to and including March 31, 2008; and 

2. All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary 

restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before 

April 30, 2009. All motions shall be noticed for the next available hearing date. 

Counsel are cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for 

noticing and opposing such motions on the Court's regularly scheduled law and 

motion calendar.

3. The Pre-Trial Conference is rescheduled to June 29, 2009 at 2:00 

P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 17, 2008 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 426 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 3
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4310

_____________________________
U PSIDE P ROPERTY I NVESTMENT , L.L.C.
, Appellant,

v.

HSBC B ANK USA, N.A., as T rustee for Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
, Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates, M ANA Series 2007

- A2
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

. June 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessie L. Harrell, The Harrell Firm, Jacksonville
, for Appellant.

Richard S. McIver and H. Michael Mu ñ iz, Kass Shuler, P.A., Tampa
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4383 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4383

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to provide for 
            environmental infrastructure in coastal Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2024

Mr. Ossoff (for himself and Mr. Warnock) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to provide for 
            environmental infrastructure in coastal Georgia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal Georgia Flooding Prevention 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COASTAL GEORGIA.

    Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3808) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
            ``(406) Coastal georgia.--$5,000,000 for environmental 
        infrastructure, including water and wastewater infrastructure 
        (including stormwater management), Glynn County, Chatham 
        County, Bryan County, Effingham County, McIntosh County, and 
        Camden County, Georgia.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 64848.

#### Iceland Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/17527, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM,

Plaintiff(s),

vs. CIV-S-04-1290-GEB/GGH 

 

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY

OF COLUSA DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC WORKS, et al.,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________/

 Plaintiff filed a discovery motion on October 20, 2005 set for hearing

November 10, 2005 @ 10:00 a.m.. Notwithstanding the three days specified by E.D. Cal. L.R.

37-251 the joint statement shall be filed in no later than five court days before the scheduled

hearing. Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 5-133(f), if the joint statement is more than 25 pages, or

the attachments are longer than 50 pages, the copy shall be hand delivered or sent by overnight

mail to chambers on the day of filing. The filing deadline, accordingly, will be November 3, 

2005.

The dispute may be organized by category, with specific discovery items attached,

if appropriate, as an exhibit. For each disputed category or individual item, include: (1) the

specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party’s position;

and (4) the opposition. E.D.Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). Do not file separate briefing. Id.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in

extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege

log. The failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to

waive it. 

The moving party is responsible for filing the joint statement. The opposing party

nevertheless must timely draft and submit its portion. Failure of either party to use best efforts to

ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions. 

Dated: 10/24/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 ___________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 66 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2
engrahm1290.251

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 66 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 57289.

protests 196878-K, etc. (New York).

#### Capitol Distributors Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, facts, and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-64,722-04

EX P A RTE CHARLES JOSHUA RAINES, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 11768-C IN THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM BURLESON COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f A r t icle 1 1.07 of the Tex as Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk o f the trial court transmitted to this Court this a pplication for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 4 18 S.W .2d 824, 826 ( Tex

. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant p l e aded g u ilty to ag g ravated assault and was placed on deferred a djudication community supervision. His g uilt was adjudicated a few y ears later, and he was sentenced to fifteen y ears’ imprisonment. Applicant g ave a pro se notice of a ppeal immediately upon t he entry of the judg ment adjudicating his g uilt. The a ppellate court attempted to inform appointed appellate coun s e l t hat Applicant’s g eneral notice of appeal did not invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Tex as Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 and ordered appellate counsel to submit a letter identifying the issues to2

b e raised on appeal and ex plaining how the court h a d jurisdiction over those issues. Ap p e l l a t e counsel did not respond, and the appellate court determined that the record d id not demonstrate an issue r elating to the trial court’s jurisdiction. As such, the appellate c ourt dismissed the appeal f or want of jurisdiction. Applicant contends, among other thing s, that he was denied his rig ht to appellate counsel and therefore his rig ht to an appeal. Applicant attaches a letter that h e recently received from appellate counsel in support of his claim. In it, appellate counsel states that he n e v e r received n otice of his appointment to Applicant’s case a n d that the relevant a

ppellate documents do not contain h is correct address. B ased on the r ecord, w e find that Applicant was d enied the rig ht to appeal throug h no fault of his own but because of a breakdown in the sy stem. Relief is g ranted. E

x parte Riley , 193 S.W 3d 9 0 0 ( Tex

. Crim. App. 2006). Applicant may file an out-of-time appeal of his conviction in cause number 11768 from the 21st D istrict Court of B urleson County

. W ithin ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Appl i c a n t is indig ent. I f Applicant is indig ent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent h im on d i r e c t ap peal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within thirty day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Applicant’s remaining claims attackingthe merits of the conviction are dismissed. Ex Parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex . Crim. App. 1997). C o p i e s o f t

h i s o p i n i on shall be sent to the Tex a s Department of Criminal J ustice–Correcti o n a l Institutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles. Delivered: November 1, 2023 Do not publish
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

HARTE HANKS, INC.

AMENDED & RESTATED RESTORATION PENSION PLAN

 

In accordance with Section 8 of the Harte Hanks, Inc. Restoration Pension Plan (as amended and restated on June 27, 2008) (the “Plan”), Section 9 of the Plan is hereby amended by the Harte Hanks, Inc. Board of Directors so that the penultimate paragraph reads in its entirety as follows:

 

Upon a Change of Control, Harte-Hanks may, in its sole discretion, make an irrevocable contribution to a “rabbi” trust in a amount not to exceed that which is sufficient to pay each Participant or Beneficiary the benefits to which Participants or their Beneficiaries would be entitled pursuant to the terms of this Restoration Plan as of the date on which the Change of Control occurred.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Harte Hanks, Inc., through the action of its Board of Directors, has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officer on the 11th day of October, 2016, with immediate effect.

 

	
 
    	
HARTE HANKS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Robert L. R.   Munden
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Robert L. R. Munden
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Executive Vice   President,
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
General Counsel & Secretary
EXHIBIT 23.1
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements for the Ionics 1979 Stock Option Plan on Form S-8 (registration
nos. 333-05225, 33-54293, 33-41598, 33-5814, 33-14194, 2-64255, 2-72936
and 2-82780); in the registration statement for the Ionics Section 401(k)
Stock Savings Plan on Form S-8 (registration no. 33-2092); in the
registration statement for the Ionics 1994 Restricted Stock Plan (No. 33-
59051); and in the registration statement for the Ionics 1986 Stock Option
Plan for Non-Employee Directors (registration no. 33-54400), of our
reports dated February 18, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and the financial statement schedule of Ionics,
Incorporated as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which are included or
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                             /s/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1997

















96
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Raymond M. Withy, Ph.D.,certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q/A of Abgenix, Inc.; and

 

2.                                       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

 

Dated: July 21, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ RAYMOND M. WITHY                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond M. Withy, Ph.D.                  |
|   | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | *(Principal  Executive Officer)*         |

 

----
No. 49606.

#### Protests 79455-K, etc., of Pope & Talbot, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walkee, J.

At the hearing plaintiff moved to incorporate the record in Abstract 43644. The court found, from a reading of the record, that a lack of creosoting of the piles there involved was an important factor and that therefore the two cases were not sufficiently similar. The motion was denied. It appears from the record that the merchandise here in issue was used as piling to form the supporting foundation for wharves, shipways, and other structures. It was conceded that 75 percent was used as foundation piling for wharves. Plaintiff’s only witness testified that the principal use is “as a foundation for some structure.” The court found plaintiff had failed to establish that the chief use was not for building wharves. On the record presented the protests were overruled. *United States*v. *MacNaughton*(5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 114, T. D. 34166) and *Kimpland*v. *United States*(G. A. 4685, T. D. 22122) cited.
(Reap. Dec. 10422)

#### Bruno New York, Inc. N. M. Albert Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 513316, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1963)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after July 1,1959.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown on schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enu*362merated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.