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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

September 19, 2014

t0916 

# Order

Clerk September 19, 2014

148907

148909 & (88)

AROMA WINES AND EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff/

Counter

- Defendant

- Appellant,

v SC: 148907

COA: 311145

Kent CC: 09

- 011149

- CK

COLUMBIAN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant/

Counter

- Plaintiff

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

AROMA WINES AND EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

- Appellee, Cross

- Appellant,

v SC: 148909

COA: 311145

Kent CC: 09

- 011149

- CK

COLUMBIAN DISTRIBUTION SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

- Appellant, Cross

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 17, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as

cross

- appellant are considered. The applications for leave to appeal are GRANTED,

limited to the issue of the proper interpretation of “converting property to the other

person’s own use,” as used in MCL 600.2919a. The application for leave to appeal as

cross

- appellant remains pending.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this cas e

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Motions for permission

to file briefs amicus curiae should be filed in Docket No. 148907 only.
Exhibit 32.2





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 this Quarterly Report
of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kayode Aladesuyi, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer; Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |     |                                                                                                                                                 | 
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: August 14, 2012 | By: | /s/ Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                                                            | 
|                      |     | Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                                                                | 
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
        (Principal Accounting Officer)
        East Coast Diversified Corporation |
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANDOVER COURT, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

LOANCARE, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1349

[May 23, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Richard Oftedal, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502021CA006550.

Neil Rose, Miami, for appellant.

David Rosenberg of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, 

PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case No. 15,097.

#### UNITED STATES v. FIFTY-THREE BALES OF RAGS.

[19 Alb. Law J. 60.]

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Jan. 7, 1879.

Customs Duties—Forfeiture—Claim of Railroad for Freightage.

The case of the United States against Fifty-Three Bales of Rags, decided by the United States district court for Massachusetts, was an information under Rev. St. § 3082, against certain bales of rags as having been clandestinely imported and brought from Montreal into some part of the state of New York without having been entered at the custom house and without payment of duties. The jury found most of the goods to be liable to forfeiture, and they were condemned and sold. The Boston & Lowell Railroad Company, from whose custody the goods were taken by the marshal, petitioned for the payment of $47.30 from the proceeds of the sale. This was claimed to be freight due for the transportation of the goods to Boston by the petitioners and connecting roads, all of whom were entirely innocent of the fraud on the government.

THE COURT

held that smuggled goods were absolutely forfeited, and no intervening rights even of a bona fide purchaser could prevail against the title of the government which relates back to the illegal act. The goods were, at the time of their transportation, the property of the United States, and by the coihmon law a carrier has no lien as against the true owner for the carriage of goods intrusted to him by one who had no authority to contract for the service.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8475

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERT HENRY DAVIS, a/k/a Pops, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:00-cr-00424-PJM-2; 8:08-cv-02777-PJM) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions as 

successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 & 

Supp. 2008) motions, and dismissing them on that basis. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we grant Davis’s motion to supplement his appeal, 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Davis’s notice of appeal, 

informal brief, and motion to supplement as an application to 

file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States 

2 
3 

v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to 

obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a 

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly 

discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due 

diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the 

offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2006). Davis’s claims 

do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

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
**Exhibit 31.2**I, Robert J. Messey, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arch Western Resources, LLC;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 12, 2005   /s/ Robert J. Messey     Robert J. Messey
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation


Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting 
of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. on Wednesday, April 
4, 2007, at the Great Lakes Room of the Coast Restaurant, 931 E. 
Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202. The agenda for this meeting will 
be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past 
Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New Business; Closing Discussion; 
Adjournment.
    Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but 
limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, 
members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. 
Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than 
March 30, 2007, Anita K. Blackman, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence 
Seaway Development Corporation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590; 202-366-0091.
    Any member of the public may present a written statement to the 
Advisory Board at any time.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 13, 2007.
Collister Johnson, Jr.,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-4863 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
EXH 32.2

MARKETWATCH, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of
MarketWatch, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2004
(the "Report"), I, Joan P. Platt, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 Company at
the dates and for the periods indicated therein.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: September 3, 2004

By: /s/ Joan P. Platt    Joan P. Platt, Chief Financial Officer

---
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class          Interest        Principal          Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>             <C>               <C>               <C>
A            1423548.87       1603741.12                0       287259221.22
OC                    0                0                0           10500000
P               3448.02                0                0                  0
R1                    0                0                0                  0
R2            408649.65                0                0                  0
S                100000                0                0                  0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce L. Rubin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant. /s/ Bruce L. RubinName: Bruce L. Rubin Date:  November 7, 2016
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer, 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.

Date:  February 14, 2005     By /s/ Thomas E. Mills
                             Thomas E. Mills
                             President & Chief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

July 10, 1943

No. 48542.

#### Protest 811904-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) Whistling balloons, rubber balloons, and noisemakers, composed in part of bamboo, at 45 percent under paragraph 409 following Abstract 40493; (2) cigarette whistles composed in part of bamboo, similar to those the subject of Abstract 39509, at 45 percent under paragraph 409; (3) metal trick daggers, not plated, at 45 percent under paragraph 397 following Abstract 37637; and (4) metal kazoos, not plated, at 45 percent under paragraph 397 following Abstracts 44122 and 32264.
448 A.2d 644

#### Bidelspacher, etc. v. Farmer, Appellant.

Réargument Denied Aug. 2, 1982.

Argued December 9, 1981.

John P. Campana, for appellant; Charles A. Szybist, for appellees.

Before CAVANAUGH, McEWEN and BECK, JJ.

Order affirmed.
U.S. EPA FACT SHEET 

San Joaquin Valley Fine Particulate Matter 

June 29, 2016 

Summary 

• The San Joaquin Valley is classified as a serious nonattainment area for the 1997 24-hour and 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

• Under the Clean Air Act, the San Joaquin Valley was required to attain these standards by 

December 31, 2015. 

• Although California Air Resources Board (ARB) and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (the District) have made significant progress in reducing emissions of PM2.5 and 

its precursor pollutants, ambient PM2.5 levels in the area continue to exceed the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. In summer 2015, ARB and the District asked the EPA to extend the attainment 

deadline by three years for the 24-hour standards (to December 2018) and by five years for the 

annual standards (to December 2020). 

• To qualify for such extensions, the Clean Air Act requires the state to meet stringent pollution 

control requirements to protect public health. 

• The EPA is not granting the state's request to extend the attainment date. A new planning effort 

will be required to continue the area’s progress towards attainment. 

Background 

• The San Joaquin Valley is located in the southern half of California’s central valley and includes 

eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the San 

Joaquin Valley portion of Kern. 

• PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere or formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic 

compounds, and ammonia. These particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure 

to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems including damage to lung 

tissue, cancer and premature death. San Joaquin Valley currently has the highest recorded PM2.5 

concentrations in the nation. 

• California submitted the 2015 PM2.5 Plan in June and August 2015 to address the Clean Air 

Act’s requirements for serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the requirements for extension of 

the attainment date under section 188(e). 

• In February 2016, the EPA proposed to grant California's requested attainment date extension 

based on our preliminary review of the 2015 PM2.5 Plan and sought public comment. The EPA 

received adverse comments on several aspects of the plan and its pollution control measures. In 

light of this additional information, the EPA can no longer support an action to extend the 

attainment date for the area. 

Next steps 

• When a serious PM2.5 nonattainment area fails to meet a standard by its deadline, the Clean Air 

Act requires the state to submit a revised plan that provides for expeditious attainment and 

annual emission reductions of at least 5% until the area attains the NAAQS. 

• The State’s request, our proposal, public comments, and other related information can be found 

at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0432.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4898 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to include extreme heat in the definition of a major disaster. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Ms. ROSEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include extreme heat in the 

definition of a major disaster. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Extreme Heat Emer5 gency Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF MAJOR DISASTER. 

7 Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

8 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4898 IS

1 is amended by inserting ‘‘extreme heat,’’ before ‘‘or 

2 drought’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 54667.

#### Max Stern & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 150425-K, etc. (New York).

*275Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.