alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136359 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136359 

 COA: 282155 

Wayne CC: 02-009290-FC

ELLIS LEE ROBINSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 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). 

s0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Case 2:04-cv-01059-LKK -KJM   Document 45    Filed 09/20/05   Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01059-LKK -KJM   Document 45    Filed 09/20/05   Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01059-LKK -KJM   Document 45    Filed 09/20/05   Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01059-LKK -KJM   Document 45    Filed 09/20/05   Page 4 of 4

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-20T20:33:41-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Before the Third Division,

September 19, 1950

No. 54673.

#### Antonio Romano et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149364-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chestnuts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Naumes Forwarding Service*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1214),. the claim for free entry under paragraph 1646 was sustained.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2202

_____________________________

GLENN DAVIS,

Appellant,

v.

PEI STAFFING LLC, WASTE 

MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Jack A. Weiss, Judge.

Date of Accident: October 28, 2015.

March 1, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and KELSEY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Bill McCabe, Longwood; Wade B. Coye and Atiya T. Munroe of 

Coye Law Firm, Orlando, for Appellant.

Vanessa J. Johnson and Warren K. Sponsler of Sponsler, Bishop, 

Koren & Hamer, P.A., Tampa; Robert C. Barrett, Kelley A. 

Richards, and Gabriela C. Sifontes of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, 

Donahue, McClain & Mangan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.
- ''''[HF'lT tv: . ,.1.,', . ,_I'. v(

-_:;~?ORrATlO~

....;I OPUlATIONS

C!Congre~!of tfJe 'm1n{teb ~tatts1]JUL 2S P 2: 3b

.alilJinlron. i1l!t 2G510

July 16,20]3

Brooke Chapman

Office of Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington DC 20590 -

Dear Assoeiate Director Chapman:

." --._~- _...••..-.-_. ,-- ._- ----------

\tis withgrelitenthu$iasril that we offer our support to-the Small Community Air Service DevelOpiileiit -

(SCASD) grant application of the Duluth Airport Authority and Visit Duluth. Duluth's SCASD

application has broad support in the local community evident by the public and private money committed

as a local mateh.

Duluth is a model candidate for the SCASD program due to its higher fares and limited air serviee

connectivity. A recent leakage study revealed that 49% of potential passengers within a 30 mile radius of

Duluth choose to drive 2 \f, hours to Minneapolis duc in part to higher fares and limited eonnectivity. The

same study also shows that 70% of Duluth's air passcngcrs are outbound. These trends are reversible

with the assistance ofthc SCASD program.

The Duluth Airport Authority, in partnership with Visit Duluth, has developed a plan targeting travel

from Chicago to Duluth in an effort to attract leisure travelers to the Duluth area. This eftart will combat

the 70% outbound passenger numbers directly bringing the percentage closer to an industry acceptable

50%. Increased passengers to Duluth will assist the airport in working with each of its -airline partners to

keep fares comp<:titiveand provide additional frequencies. The economic,impact ofthis.in"estmentwill •

also be felt in many businesses of the region as travelers stay in area hotels, eat in local restauTahis, and

shop in many oftbe local small businesses that call Duluth home. -

The airport-and the community are on the cusp of self-sustaining growth with the infusion of capital the

SCASJ2yrogram can ~rovide. We think you will agree that Duluth's application makes a strong case .

.--. Thankyou foryourconsideranonoftheirappllcafioo.- -- -- - -- .. -------- --'- .------------

United States Senator United StatesSenator

Richard M. Nolan

Member of Congress

~-..•'i(~r~ .• __ ••• lIlI!lli•• ,.:$'*'e:!~~~ . ..;,.~~,~: ..~ ~ ; .._',r;.
**Exhibit 24**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby constitute and appoint DOUGLAS A.HABIG, his or her true and lawfulattorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, in name, place and stead, to sign the Form 10-K Annual Report ofKimball International, Inc. (and each amendment thereto, if any) pursuant toSection 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2010, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, andother documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact full power and authority to signsuch document on behalf of the undersigned and to make such filing, as fully toall intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that the attorney-in-fact, or their substitutes,may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Date: August 17, 2010

| /s/  James C. Thyen      James C. Thyen               | /s/  Douglas A. Habig      Douglas A. Habig           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                |                                                                                |   |
|                                                                                |                                                                                |   |
| /s/  Jack R. Wentworth      Jack R. Wentworth         | /s/  Christine M. Vujovich      Christine M. Vujovich |   |
|                                                                                |                                                                                |   |
|                                                                                |                                                                                |   |
| /s/  Harry W. Bowman      Harry W. Bowman             | /s/ Geoffrey L. Stringer            Geoffrey L. Stringer        |   |
|                                                                                |                                                                                |   |
|                                                                                |                                                                                |   |
| /s/  Thomas J. Tischhauser      Thomas J. Tischhauser |                                                                                |   |
<PAGE>   1
21. Subsidiaries of the registrant



                           WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

Keithley International Investment Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

Keithley Foreign Sales Corporation
5 Norre Gade, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801

FRANCE:  Keithley Instruments SARL
BP 60, 3 allee des Garays
91122 Palaiseau Cedex

GERMANY:  Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN:  Keithley Instruments Ltd.
The Minister, 58 Portman Road
Reading (London), Berkshire RG30 1EA

ITALY:  Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

JAPAN:  Keithley Instruments Far East KK
Aibido Building
7-20-2 Nishishinjuku
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160

NETHERLANDS:  Keithley Instruments BV
Avenlingen West 49
4202 MS Gorinchem (Amsterdam)

SWITZERLAND:  Keithley Instruments SA
Kriesbachstrasse 4
8600 Dubendorf (Zurich)
No. 46142.

#### Protests 58093-K, etc., of David Cornman et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The papers disclosing nothing to overcome the action of the collector the protests were overruled.
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

1

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Request for Extension of Time

to Serve Discovery Responses and Motions to Compel

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JAMES E. FLYNN, State Bar No. 61139

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-1976

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Brown, Butler, Chandler,

Cribbs, Grannis, Hughes, and Rodriguez

48149286-SA2005101005

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

VAHAN JALADIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. A. HUGHES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CIV S -04-1304 LKK CMK P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND

MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

Defendants’ request for a 21-day extension of time to serve their responses to

Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents, First Request for Admissions, and First

Sets of Interrogatories, and their request that the Court extend the time to file motions to compel

discovery 21 days, were considered by this Court and, good cause appearing; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ requests are granted. Defendants shall

serve their responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents, First Request for

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

2

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Request for Extension of Time

to Serve Discovery Responses and Motions to Compel

Admissions, and First Sets of Interrogatories by no later than August 15, 2005. Further, the

parties shall serve and file any motions to compel discovery by no later than September 2, 2005.

DATED: August 3, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                           7,165
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,064
<INVENTORY>                                     23,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,427
<PP&E>                                         112,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,402
<BONDS>                                         44,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,506
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,891
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,011)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,201
<SALES>                                        184,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,771
<CGS>                                          119,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,236
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (815)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,051
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
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.

 May 27, 2020 t0520

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2020

160152 & (99)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160152

COA: 334614 

Saginaw CC: 15-041847-FC

DOMINIQUE ARNETT RAMSEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the July 2, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People v 

Sammons, ___ Mich ___ (Docket No. 156189, decided March 16, 2020).
```
**Exhibit 31.02****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14**

         I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  June 19, 2006

/s/ Kenneth G.C. Telford     
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Principal Financial Officer
```
II 

Calendar No. 532 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4404 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, as the ‘‘Commander Delbert Austin Olson Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. CRAMER (for himself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 840 Front Street in Casselton, North Dakota, 

as the ‘‘Commander Delbert Austin Olson Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COMMANDER DELBERT AUSTIN OLSON POST 

4 OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 840 Front Street in Casselton, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4404 RS

1 North Dakota, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Commander Delbert Austin Olson Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Commander Delbert 

7 Austin Olson Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 532 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4404 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostDelbert Austin Olson Post Office’’. Casselton, North Dakota, as the ‘‘Commander al Service located at 840 Front Street in 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 1

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY BIGGS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1169 FCD GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the 2002 decision by the

Board of Prison Terms (BPT) finding him unsuitable for parole.

On May 1, 2006, petitioner filed a status report stating that on December 28,

2005, the BPT found him eligible for parole. On June 7, 2006, petitioner filed a status report in

CIV S-1439 FCD GGH P stating that on May 23, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger reversed the

grant of parole.1

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01169-FCD-GGH Document 33 Filed 09/21/06 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

2

Because Governor Schwarzennegger reversed the 2005 decision by the BPT

finding petitioner suitable for parole, petitioner shall show cause within twenty days from the

date of this order why the instant action should not be dismissed as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days of the date of

this order, petitioner shall show cause why this instant action should not be dismissed as moot.

DATED: 9/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

big1169.osc

Case 2:04-cv-01169-FCD-GGH Document 33 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Filed 4/17/15 P. v. Orozco CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREW JOSEPH OROZCO,

Defendant and Appellant. H041009

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. C1235740)

Defendant Andrew Joseph Orozco pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal

injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) 1 and criminal threats

(§ 422). He was placed on probati on and ordered to pay a number of fees and fines,

including a $450 presentence investigation fee and a probation supervision fee “not to

exceed” $50 per month. (See § 1203.1b.)

In his opening brief, defendant argued that the trial court erred by ordering him to

pay the presentence investigation fee and probation supervision fee without any

determination of his ability to pay th ose fee s , without a waiver of his right to a hearing on

ability to pay, and without substantial evidence of his ability to pay. D efendant

acknowledged that he had not objected below to the imposition of these fees, but he

argued that he did not thereby forfeit his appellate challenge.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.2

However, as defendant acknowledges in his reply brief, his argument has been

foreclosed by the rec ent decision in People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, which

concluded it is appropriate “to place the burden on the defendant to assert noncompliance

with section 1203.1b in the trial court as a prerequisite to challenging the imposition of

probation c osts on appeal.

. . .” ( Id. at p. 858.) Defendant concedes that based on

Trujillo

, we must determine that he forfeited his challenge to the presentence

investigation fee and probation supervision fee. We will therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellate counsel has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court

ordered considered with the appeal. We have disposed of the habeas petition by separate

order filed this day. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(2)(B).)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.___________________________________________ B AMATTRE

- MANOUKIAN, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________ M IHA R A , J.

__________________________ MÁRQUEZ, J.
No. 63095.

#### Barnett International Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/12548 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed.