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.

 February 28, 2014

s0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

148014 & (29)(30)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148014

COA: 315897

Saginaw CC: 10-034589-FC

SEAN MICHAEL RYAN, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2013 

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). The 

motion to remand and the motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
#### The Hanover National Bank of the City of New York, *Respondent, v.*Eleazar S. Vaughan, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, t\ J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald S. Harris, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 667]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered July 1, 1994, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In October 1990, defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was originally sentenced to six months in jail and five years’ probation. One of the conditions of defendant’s probation was that he participate and remain in any psychological counseling program arranged by his probation officer. In April 1994, defendant left an inpatient alcohol counseling program he was ordered to attend as a prerequisite to sexual abuse counseling. Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation and Supreme Court resentenced him to a term of 2 to 6 years in prison.

Initially, we reject defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed is illegal because it runs more than five years beyond the date of the underlying conviction in violation of Penal Law § 60.01. Supreme Court had authority pursuant to CPL 410.70 (5) to revoke defendant’s probation and impose a sentence of imprisonment for the underlying crime. Inasmuch as the Penal Law does not restrict the length of the sentence in this case (Penal Law § 60.01 [3]), we find that the sentence imposed was within statutory parameters *(see,*Penal Law §§ 70.00, 70.02) and is not harsh and excessive under the circumstances presented. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit since Supreme Court acted within the parameters of the probationary sentencing structure authorized by Penal Law § 65.10 *(see, People v Letterlough,*86 NY2d 259, 265-266).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
----

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 

The undersigned, Terence Yap, theChief Financial Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the “Company”),DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that: 

1. 

The Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. 

Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operation of the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of theundersigned has executed this statement this 28th day of July 2009. 

/s/ Terence Yap                                   Terence YapChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) 
A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc.and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.
No. 51469.

#### Protests 125261-K, etc., of Sam Yeung Co., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

29–011 2013

113th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–42 

SUSPENSION OF BANGLADESH AS A BENEFICIARY 

DEVELOPING COUNTRY UNDER THE GENERALIZED 

SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES PROGRAM 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

notification of the suspension of Bangladesh as a beneficiary developing 

country under the Generalized System of Preferences program. 

JUNE 28, 2013.—Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and 

ordered to be printed. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

In accordance with section 502(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended (the ‘‘1974 Act’’) (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)(2)), I am providing notification of my intent to suspend the designation of Bangladesh as 

a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of 

Preferences (GSP) program. Section 502(b)(2)(G) of the 1974 Act 

(19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2)(G)) provides that the President shall not designate any country a beneficiary developing country under the GSP 

if such country has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights in the country (including any 

designated zone in that country). Section 502(d)(2) of the 1974 Act 

(19 U.S.C. 2462(d)(2)) provides that, after complying with the requirements of section 502(f)(2) of the 1974 Act, the President shall 

withdraw or suspend the designation of any country as a beneficiary developing country if, after such designation, the President 

determines that as the result of changed circumstances such country would be barred from designation as a beneficiary developing 

country under section 502(b)(2) of the 1974 Act. 

Pursuant to section 502(d) of the 1974 Act, having considered the 

factors set forth in section 502(b)(2)(G), I have determined that it 

is appropriate to suspend Bangladesh’s designation as a beneficiary 

developing country under the GSP program because it is not taking 

steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers 

in the country. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 27, 2013. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
#### Shantz Associates, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7291.

Invoices dated Halesowen, England, March 30, 1946, etc.

Certified April 2, 1946, etc.

Entered at Rochester, N. Y., May 2, 1946, etc.

Entry No. 631, etc.

(Decided June 17, 1947)

PlaintifE not represented,by counsel.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*188On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
About this capture
Internet Archive
Wayback Machine
Wide Crawl Number 13
No. 64186.

protests 59/24430, etc. (New York).

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the dice in question are in chief value, of “polyurethane foam, a plastic material,” and that they are not similar in use to any article named or enumerated in the tariff act,’ the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. Protest 59/22855, having been abandoned as to entry 725700, was dismissed as to said entry.
#### Suzanne Howarth, Appellant, v Patrick W. O’Daly, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 385]

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), entered March 1, 1994, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant Patrick William O’Daly to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101 (d), dismissed the action.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3101 (d) makes plain that a party in a medical malpractice action "may omit” the name or identity of his expert witness in responding to a CPLR 3101 request but that, upon a proper demand, he or she must nevertheless disclose all other information specified under the statute: the subject matter of the testimony, the substance of the facts and opinions underlying the testimony, the expert’s qualifications, and a summary of the grounds for the opinion *(see, e.g., Jasopersaud v Tao Gyoun Rho,*169 AD2d 184). The party upon whom the demand is made may not, as in this action, elect not to respond in any *319manner, without having moved for a protective order, simply because he or she believes that the discovery demand improperly requests the disclosure of an expert’s identity. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
Case No. 14,506.

#### UNITED STATES v. BALES OF TOBACCO.

[See Case No. 15,965.]
### STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS III 

# F 

# 111jr

# 1 "11 11111101* 11 NO. 

### 2023 KW0848 STEVEN STAGGS 

## NOVEMBER6, 2023 In Re: Steven Staggs, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 19th Judicial District 

### Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

### No. 

### 10-09-0936. BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, 

### AND GREENE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. The records of the Clerk of Court of East Baton 

### Rouge Parish 

### indicate that the 

### district court 

### is proceeding toward 

### disposition of relator' s application 

### for postconviction relief. MRT ARP 

### HG
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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: August 10, 2010
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer (principal financial
and accounting officer) and Secretary
EXHIBIT 6

CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND
SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the registrant) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Alberto Lavandeira, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Dated: May 7th, 2004

/s/ Alberto Lavandeira

Alberto Lavandeira
President and Chief Executive Officer















CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND
SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the registrant) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Omar Gomez, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Dated: May 7th, 2004

/s/ Omar Gomez

Omar Gomez
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of Litigation Trustee Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. Litigation ContingentPayment Rights Trust for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of theirknowledge:

 

(1)    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH  P. DURRETT |   |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|
| Joseph P.  Durrett     |   |
| Litigation  Trustee    |   |
| November 12,  2004     |   |

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Registrant for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the FastenTech, Inc. (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Ronald B. Kalich,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael R. Elia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

(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: May 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald B. Kalich   
|                   |  |     |  | Ronald B. Kalich       
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |    
|Date: May 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael R. Elia    
|                   |  |     |  | Michael R. Elia        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                   |  |     |  | FastenTech, Inc.
No. 52644.

protests 136563-K, etc. (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of scarves similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 50303, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 March 31, 2006 (the Report) of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JONATHAN H. COHEN, the Chief Executive 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/    JONATHAN H.
COHENName: Jonathan H. Cohen Date: May 9, 2006
Exhibit 99.1



                               CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Universal
Communication Systems, Inc. (the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of its Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year Ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), the undersigned does hereby certify
that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operation of the Company.



                                       /s/ MICHAEL J. ZWEBNER
                                       ------------------------
Date:  February 13, 2003          By:  Michael J. Zwebner
                                       Chairman of the Board of
                                       Directors
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALENTIN GANNITSKIY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-73601

Agency No. A074-806-631

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Valentin Gannitskiy, a native and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JAN 26 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub

v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on Gannitskiy’s submission of an altered birth certificate, the inconsistencies

regarding his surname, and his failure to corroborate his claim. See id. at 1045;

Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility finding

supported where fraudulent documents and inconsistencies in testimony went to

the heart of the claim). Gannitskiy’s explanations do not compel the contrary

result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of

credible testimony, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah

v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Gannitskiy’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same

statements the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other

evidence in the record to compel a finding that it is more likely than not he would

be tortured if returned to Ukraine. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 923

(9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-73601
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Goldman Sachs
Hedge Fund Strategies LLC, hereby certifies that Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund
Partners II, LLC's (the "Company") Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ George H. Walker
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Name:   George H. Walker
                                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  August 15, 2005

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA LERMA,

 Appellant,

v.

GERARDO QUINTANA,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00270-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012-CCV03594)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rosa Lerma, Appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2) because the parties have settled the dispute. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. The motion does not reflect that the parties have made any agreement 

regarding costs. Accordingly, costs are taxed against Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P.

42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant).

August 14, 2013

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### WILLIAM PURICH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. IRVING WEININGER, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 72 *N. J. Super.*344.

*Messrs. Major & Major*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Morrison, *Lloyd & Griggs*for the respondent.

April 30, 1962.
Exhibit 10.29
 2011 COMPENSATION INFORMATION FOR REGISTRANTS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
  20112011
    
    
    TargetAnnual
    
    
    Bonus (%Executive Officer
    
    Title
    
    Salary ($)
    
    
    of Salary)Mitchell S. Steiner
    
    Chief Executive Officer and Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors
    
    
    525,000
    
    
    
    65Marc S. Hanover
    
    President and Chief Operating Officer
    
    
    456,750
    
    
    
    55Ronald A. Morton, Jr.
    
    Vice President, Chief Medical Officer
    
    
    452,025
    (1)
    
    
    30James T. Dalton
    
    Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer
    
    
    400,000
    
    
    
    30Henry P. Doggrell
    
    Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
    
    
    351,281
    (2)
    
    
    30Mark E. Mosteller
    
    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
    
    
    298,083
    
    
    
    30
 (1)
    
    Dr. Morton will also be eligible for tax gross-up payments related to certain
travel expenses paid by the Company during 2011 on his behalf.(2)
    
    Effective as of February 21, 2011.