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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133045 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: 133045 COA: 271068 St. Joseph CC: 03-011902-FC WILLIAM LESTER SUMMERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
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] re Defendant’s Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, ET AL. ,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:04-CV-2225 GEB

PAN P

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS'

SECOND REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Defendants’ Second Request for an Extension of Time to file their responses to

plaintiff’s Complaint was considered by this Court, and good cause appearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Largent and Brown have 30 days from the

date of service of this order to file their responses to the complaint.

Dated: May 23, 2006.

/whit2225.ext2

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 64890.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 153569-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 6583.

#### EDWARD SUTTON vs. YAZOO *&*MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD CO.

Syllabus.

Questions of fact only are involved.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District 'Court, Parish of St. Charles, No. 600. Honorable John E. Fleury, Judge.

P. E. Edrington, Jr., for plaintiff and appellee.

W. Catesby Jones, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a suit by a passenger for having been wrongfully ejected from a train by defendant’s conductor prior to reaching the destination to which his ticket entitled him to travel. Plaintiff secured judgment for $300.0Ü damages, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff claims that he purchased a ticket to Reserve, La., which was examined by the brakeman as he entered the coach and which was taken up by the conductor shortly after the train left New Orleans, but that nevertheless he was put off the train some 17 miles short of his destination by the conductor, who contended that the ticket he had collected from plaintiff did not call for transportation to Reserve but to Kenner, a station nearer New Orleans.

Plaintiff testifies that he did not have on his person and was unable to borrow from the other passengers the additional fare demanded by the conductor and that thereupon the latter took him by the arm and pulled him *254from the train, throwing his suit case and his tool chest upon the platform after the train had started.

Opinion and decree, March 27th, 1916.

The conductor contends that he ejected him very gently, but admits that he has a brusque manner of speaking that might be considered rough by strangers and that he asked plaintiff: “How do you want to be put off, like a hog or walk off like a gentleman.”

The transaction occurred about 5 o’clock of a December evening and plaintiff was obliged to walk the distance of 17 miles to Eeserve in order to begin work that night ■on an urgent repair job required in the sugar factory there.

Plaintiff’s statement of the transaction, corroborated by another witness, was accepted by the trial Court, and no valid reason has been suggested to us for rejecting it. The defendant relies wholly upon the testimony of tne conductor who mistakenly,, though perhaps honestly, believed that plaintiff, among" the fifty odd passengers in that coach, handed him a ticket to Kenner and not to Eeserve. Still neither the accuracy of plaintiff’s testimony in general nor his character or honesty has been assailed, .and we therefore would be more justified in presuming that the conductor committed an honest error than that plaintiff was engaged in effort V defraud the railroad.

On the score of the quantum of damages, we are satisfied that the amount allowed does substantial justice and we shall make no amendment with reference thereto.

Ford vs. East La. Railroad Co., 110 La., 419.

Marx vs. Railroad Co., 112 La., 1065.

Bader vs. Railroad Co., 52 An., 1060.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
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

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

ROBERT R. ANDERSON

Chief Assistant Attorney General

MARY JO GRAVES

Senior Assistant Attorney General

CHARLES A. FRENCH

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

ANGELO S. EDRALIN

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 190085

 1300 I Street

 P.O. Box 944255

 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

 Telephone: (916) 445-9909

 Fax: (916) 324-5567

Attorneys for Respondents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELON MICHEAL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2284 GEB DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ August 17, 2005 request for an enlargement of time to file a

response to petitioner’s second amended petition is granted; and

2. Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus shall be filed on or before September 19, 2005.

DATED: August 22, 2005.

/will2284.111ap

Case 2:04-cv-02284-GEB-DAD Document 20 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 on Form 10-Qof EnerNOC, Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30, 2008,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Timothy G. Healy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Neal C.Isaacson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuantto Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: August 13,2008

 
| By:    | /s/ Timothy G. Healy    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy G. Healy        |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
| By:    | /s/ Neal C. Isaacson    |   |
|   | Neal C. Isaacson        |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to EnerNOC, Inc. and will beretained by EnerNOC, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2008044EN.01003401.xml

| 16.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/34

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the suppression of radio interference produced by agricultural or forestry tractors (electromagnetic compatibility)’ (Codified version)

COM(2007) 462 final — 2007/0166 (COD)

(2008/C 44/09)

On 5 September 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 439th plenary session of 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), by 153 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 24 October 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
No. 54677.

#### W. F. Mackay *v.*United States,

protests 111823-K, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was, sustained.
### RIN 2060-AP52

12/16/2011 08:18 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi,

Can you have the attached clean files uploaded by OP into ROCIS? I’ve

opened it for amendment. I’ll be sending the rest of the clean RIA in a

subsequent email.

Regards,

Cortney

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitiesM ATS2060_AP52Final20111216a.docx

ROCIS_MATS_1216.xlsx

MATS Cover Page.doc

MATS Back Cover.doc

MATS TOC updated.doc

ROCIS_MATS_1216.xlsx

MATS TOC.DOC

0_Executive SummaryMATS_1216_FINAL.DOC

Chapter 2_ElectricPowerSect orProfile_1216_FINAL.DOCChapter 1_IntroductionBackground_1216_FINAL.DOC

Chapter 3_CostEconomicEnergy_1216_FINAL.DOCX

Chapter 4_mercuryHAPbenefits_1216_FINAL.DOCX
### O3 reconsideration proposal -- change page Lydia Wegman to: dmancini 01/05/2010 11:57 AM Cc: Karen Martin, John Hannon, Ron Evans, Kathy Kaufman, Tricia Crabtree

Dom, Based on our discussion earlier, we have modified the two sentences on which you had comments to address your concerns. Attached is the change page showing the revisions to both sentences. Please let me know if these changes work for you. On the RIA, we will develop graphical presentations for Houston, the Northeast corridor, Baton Rouge and the combined area of Chicago, Gary IN and Milwaukee. Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley do not work for this kind of presentation since they are not required to attain by 2020 and we did not do a supplemental analysis for these areas. We will work on developing these graphs and plan to send them to you as a separate section of the supplemental RIA. I will get back to you by 1 PM to let you know when we think we can send these to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Lydia
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10349-10350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26285; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-69-AD; 
Amendment 39-14932; AD 2007-04-01]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Corporation Ltd Model 
750XL Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive 
(AD) 2007-04-01, which was published in the Federal Register on 
February 14, 2007 (72 FR 6931), and applies to certain Pacific 
Aerospace Corporation Ltd Model 750XL airplanes. AD 2007-04-01 requires 
that you inspect the rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 
19.67, WL 86.2, and replace undersize rivets. Current language in Sec.  
39.13 [Amended] of AD 2007-04-01 references ``* * *'' instead of 
``2007-04-01.'' This document corrects that paragraph by changing the 
reference from ``* * *'' to ``2007-04-01.''

DATES: The effective date of this AD (2007-04-01) remains March 21, 
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 
Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion

    On February 5, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-04-01, Amendment 39-
14932 (72 FR 6931, February 14, 2007), which applies to certain Pacific 
Aerospace

[[Page 10350]]

Corporation Ltd Model 750XL airplanes. AD 2007-04-01 requires you to 
inspect the rivets in the fuselage roof at STN 180.85, BL 19.67, WL 
86.2, and replace undersize rivets. Current language in Sec.  39.13 
[Amended] of AD 2007-04-01 references ``* * *'' instead of ``2007-04-
01.''

Need for the Correction

    This correction is needed to specify the correct AD number (2007-
04-01) for AD 2007-04-01.

Correction of Publication

0
Accordingly, the publication of February 14, 2007 (72 FR 6931), of 
Amendment 39-14932; AD 2007-04-01, which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-
2318, is corrected as follows:

Section 39.13 [Corrected]

0
On page 6932, in the second column, in Sec.  39.13 [Amended], in the 
third line, remove ``* * *'' and add ``2007-04-01'' in its place.
0
Action is taken herein to correct this reference in AD 2007-04-01 and 
to add this AD correction to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).
    The effective date remains March 21, 2007.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 2, 2007.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-4130 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-2226 LKK/GGH P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

NATHAN BURNETTE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On June 14, 2005, the magistrate judge in the abovecaptioned case recommended dismissal of defendant Sacramento County

because plaintiff’s second amended complaint naming officers

Burnette and Deaux and Sacramento County contained no allegations

against defendants Burnette and Deaux. On June 22, 2005, plaintiff

filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations explaining that he may have made a mistake in

filing his amended complaint because he has two cases filed with

the court. Plaintiff attaches the second amended complaint he

intended to file with this court in the suit against defendants

Case 2:04-cv-02226-LKK -GGH Document 25 Filed 08/16/05 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

1 In the amended complaint that plaintiff attached to his

objections and which he meant to file with the court, there are

indeed allegations against Defendants Burnette, Deaux and the

County of Sacramento. 

2

Burnette, Deaux, and the County of Sacramento.1 It appears from

this court’s examination of the docket that plaintiff indeed

mistakenly failed to file the correct amended complaint with the

court. Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the amended

complaint attached to plaintiff’s objections in Case No. CIV. S-04-

2226 LKK/GGH, as this complaint will be deemed the amended

complaint.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve defendants

Burnette, Deaux and the County of Sacramento with this amended

complaint. 

3. This matter is remanded to the magistrate judge for

further proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 15, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02226-LKK -GGH Document 25 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Prospero Minerals Corp. (Prospero) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Etoile Pinder, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to s.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 result of operations of Prospero.

By:/s/ Hubert Pinder

Name: Hubert PinderTitle:Chief Financial Officer 
Dated: November 10, 2008

---
No. 41784.

#### Protest 254976-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10744)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2225.

(Decided May 5, 1964)

*Brooks £ Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *544IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement herein consists of tires, tubes and tapes exported from Holland.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise as that specified below was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, were the following unit invoiced prices net packed:

> Invoice • Per 100

> Tires Tires

> 900 24 X 1.75 whitewall $75. 09

> Tubes

> 1200 26 X 1.75 butyl $32. 48

> 900 24 X 1.75 butyl $31. 50

> IT IS. FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise as the remainder of the merchandise specified on the invoice herein was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States were the appraised unit prices less 3% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal to reap-praisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold that such statutory value for the items enumerated below is as follows:

> Invoice Per 100

> Tires Tires

> 900 24 X 1.75 whitewall $75. 09

> Tubes

> 1200 26 X 1.75 butyl $32. 48

> 900 24 X 1.75 butyl $31. 50

and that for all other merchandise included on the invoice, covered by the entry involved herein, said statutory value is the appraised unit prices, less 3 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.12


 


 SECOND AMENDMENT
TO


NEXPHASE GLOBAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREEMENT


 





THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO NEXPHASE
GLOBAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), is entered into as of March 15, 2016, by and between Sports
Field Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and NexPhase Global, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company ("NexPhase").


 


WHEREAS, the Company and NexPhase
entered into that certain NexPhase Global Representative Agreement dated as of December 10, 2014 (the "Agreement");


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and NexPhase hereby agree
to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


		1.	Section 4(a) shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



 


"MONTHLY FEE.
Company agrees to pay Representative (i) a monthly fee of $10,000.00, payable on
March 15, 2016 and the fifteenth of each month thereafter for a period of 12 months (with the final such payment payable on
March 1, 2017) (the "Initial Monthly Fee") and (ii) a monthly fee of $10,000.00, payable
on April 1, 2016 and on the first day of each month thereafter during the term of this Agreement (the "Second Monthly
Fee" and, together with the Initial Monthly Fee, the "Monthly Fees"). Interest
for any unpaid Monthly Fees shall accrue at the rate of 10% per annum, beginning on the first day of the month following the
month in which such unpaid Monthly Fees were due. The Monthly Fees shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any Commission
payments owed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement."


 





		2.	Except as
otherwise provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement, as so amended, remain unchanged and are hereby ratified
and confirmed.



 


		3.	This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
domestic laws of the State of Nevada, excluding any conflict of laws, rule or principle
that might refer the governance of construction of this Amendment to the law of another jurisdiction.






 






    	 		 



     

    




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending
to be legally bound, has executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written.


 





	 	 	 	SPORTS FIELD HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Jeromy Olson	 
	 	 	 	 	Chief Executive Officer	 


 


 


	 	 	 	NEXPHASE GLOBAL, LLC
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Kort Wickenheiser	 
	 	 	 	 	Managing Member