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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

h1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145920

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145920

COA: 303989

Calhoun CC: 2010

- 002810

- FH

SAM DANIEL SANDERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2012

judgment of the Court of App eals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ajay Bansal, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.

Date: August 9, 2006



By:

/s/ Ajay BansalAjay BansalChief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In re:

WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS, 

L.L.C.,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-19-00180-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Ruben Morales, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas, 

and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny 

the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

Alley, J., Dissenting
#### UNITED STATES, Petitioner v PRINTICE WYSINGLE, Jr., Staff Sergeant, U. S. Army, Respondent

19 USCMA 263, 41 CMR 263

Miscellaneous Docket No. 69-75

February 27, 1970

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Captain Benjamin G. Porter,*and *Captain Edward W. Hieronymus*were on the pleadings for Petitioner.

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain Thomas R. Maher*were on the pleadings for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

This Court, on November 21, 1969 (United States v Wysingle, 19 USCMA 81, 41 CMR 81), reversed the respondent’s conviction for unlawfully transferring marihuana to another in violation of section 4742, Title 26, United States Code. The record of trial was returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the Court of Military Review for a rehearing or reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the finding of guilty of the remaining specification.

The Government now petitions this Court for reconsideration of that action, contending that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Minor v United States, 396 US 87, 24 L Ed 2d 283, 90 S Ct — (1969), is controlling. We agree. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration is granted, and the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge FERGUSON concurs

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I would adhere to the earlier dismissal of the specification for the reasons set out in my opinion in United States v Adams, 19 USCMA 75, 41 CMR 75 (1969).
No. 51077.

#### Protests 50074-K, etc., of S. J. Berger (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706); and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8548 

To remove aliens who fail to comply with a release order, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. NEHLS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To remove aliens who fail to comply with a release order, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Accountability 

5 Through Deportation Act’’ or the ‘‘ATD Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF ALIENS WHO FAIL TO COMPLY WITH 

7 RELEASE ORDER. 

8 Section 240(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8548 IH

1 ‘‘(F) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RELEASE

2 ORDER.—In the case that an immigration offi3 cer submits an affidavit to an immigration 

4 judge stating that an alien failed to comply with 

5 a condition of release under section 236(a), 

6 such alien shall be ordered removed in 

7 absentia.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 44084.

#### Protests 971769-G, etc., of Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The testimony established that the importation consists-in part of glass candlesticks. It was found from the evidence, including an inspection and examination of the samples, that the merchandise in question-consists of candlesticks in chief value of glass, not designed for electrical illumination, and does not consist of table and kitchen articles and utensils. The elaim-at 40 percent under paragraph 218 (c) and T. D. 49458 was sustained in part.
No. 46790.

#### Protest 970003-G of J. W. Robinson Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the hearing the deputy collector testified on behalf of the plaintiff that an error was made in applying the tax on the basis of the entire net weight and stated that the correct weight was attached to the entry form. It appeared that the tax on the soap by reason of the cocoanut and palm *435oil content should have been on the basis of 2.722 cents per pound on 675 pounds, 2.70 cents per pound on 126 pounds, and 2.88 cents per pound on 23 pounds, making a total tax due of $22.43. The collector was therefore directed to reliqui-date accordingly.
#### The People, App'lts, *v.*Jas. C. Duane, Resp’t.

No papers.

Motion, under section 1279 of the Code, granted.

See 28 N. Y. State Rep., 559.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FREDERICK MALINKA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued January 8,1968

Decided February 19,1968.

*Mr. Richard L. Bonello*argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Edmund J. Oanzona,*of counsel; *Messrs. Parsons, Oanzona, Blair & Warren,*attorneys).

*Mr. Thomas L. Yaccarino,*Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. Vincent P. Keuper,*Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Ctjeiam.

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. He appealed therefrom, alleging primarily that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on the ground that the evidence established that he was insane at the time of commission of the offense. Other grounds urged in his brief were that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence on the insanity issue, *206and that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial which was based upon the same claim.

We have examined carefully all of the evidence submitted at the trial. There is no doubt that defendant committed the murder. His defense was insanity. On that score the evidence presented a clear jury question. The jury’s resolution of the issue adversely to defendant finds ample support in the record. Consideration of all the testimony demonstrates that the verdict of second degree murder was a just result.

We have considered all the alleged trial errors raised by defendant and none of them presents a ground on which reversal should be ordered.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintkatjb and Justices Jacobs, Ebancis, Pkoctob, Hall, Schbttino and Haneman—7.

*For*reversal—None.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian F. Grimes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                               
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: October 31, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Brian F. Grimes           
|                       |  |     |  | Brian F. Grimes, President and
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 57394.

protest 187407-K (New York).

#### Roberts, Reilly *&*Sons *v.*United States,

*480Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that in the liquidation of the entry the merchandise was assessed with duty on the ground that the importer had hot filed a correct certificate of exportation; that a proper certificate of exportation has now been filed and that had said certificate been in the possession of the collector at the time of the review of the protest, the merchandise would have been granted free entry under paragraph 1615, *supra;*and that the facts are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104. In view of the concession of the collector and following the decision cited, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AG US T I NU S DA VI D MON I AG A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70406 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 020- 348 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A gus t i nus D a vi d M oni a ga , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e re vi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the B IA ’ s deni alof a m ot i on t o reopen, and revi ew 

# FI LED JU N 10 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70406 2 d e n o v o c l a i ms o f

du e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n s i n r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g c l a i ms o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e gr antthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w and r e m and. T he B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on byba s i ng i t s pr e j udi c e i nqui ryon a h e i g h t e n e ds t an d ar dw h e r e i tc o n c l u d e dth a tM o n i a g af a i l e dt o e s t ab l i s h ap r i ma f a c ie c a s e o f

e lig ib ilityf

o rth e r e lie f

s o u g h t. Se e I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 8 9 9 -9 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (al i en m u std em o n strat e th atco u n sel ’ s p erfo rm an ce “ w as so in a d e q u a te th a t it m ayh a v e a f f e c te dth e o u tc o m e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s ” ) ; M

a ra v illa M a ra v illa v . A s h c r o

ft , 38 1 F . 3d 85 5, 85 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( al i en “ need no tshow that the yw oul d w i n orl os e on anyc l a i m s ” ) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i on and quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed). W e there fore re m and for the B IA t o rec on si der i t s pre j ud i ce de t e rm i na t i on. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

List of “significant subsidiaries” of Petrobras Energía Participaciones S.A. 

as defined in rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X 

 

1. Petrobras Energía S.A. 

 

2. PetrobrasEnergía Venezuela S.A. (Venezuela) 

 

3. Petrobras Financial ServicesGMBH (Austria) 

 

4. Petrobras Energía Perú S.A. (Perú)

 

5. Innova S.A. (Brazil) 

 

6. Petrobras Energía Ecuador (Cayman) 

 

7 Ecuadortlc S.A. (Ecuador) 

 

8. World Fund Financial Services (Cayman)
**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, Xiaoling Li, Chief Financial Officer of CHINA NEW ENERGY GROUP
      COMPANY (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
      this 19th day of November 2008.





/s/
                Xiaoling LiXiaoling
                LiChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China New Energy Group Company and will be retained by China New Energy Group
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.





The
      forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
      made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
      language in such filing.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001

Commission file number 333-85443-02

ABN AMRO Mortgage Corporation (as depositor under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
Dated as of November 1, 1999 providing for, inter alia, the issuance of ABN AMRO Mortgage
Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 1999-8)
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of  incorporation or organization)

363886007
(I.R.S. Employer  Identification No.)

181 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois  60602
(Address of principal executive offices)

60602
(Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (248)  643-2530

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.
           Yes [X]       No  [ ]

This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A amends Item 14 of the original Form
10-K which was filed on March 26, 2002




      Item 14.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on Form 8-K.

	(a)	Exhibits

		(99.1)	Annual Independent Accountant's Servicing Report

		(99.2)	Annual Statement of Compliance

	(b) 	Reports on Form 8-K were filed during the last quarter of 2001 in order to provide
statements for the monthly distributions to investors on September 27, 2001,
October 25, 2001, November 27, 2001, and December 26, 2001.

Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 are not filed herewith since documents were not received at least
three business days prior to the due date of this report.  The documents will be included in the
Form 10-K/A to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of such documents.



				SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

LaSalle Bank National Association, in its
capacity as Agent for the Trustee under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement on behalf of  ABN AMRO Mortgage
Corporation, Registrant


By:	/s/  	Cynthia Reis
	---------------------------
		Cynthia Reis
		First Vice President

Date:	May 21, 2002
Exhibit 12.1
  Mediacom
    Communications Corporation and Subsidiaries
  Schedule
    of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  For the Years Ended December 31,2009


2008


2007


2006


2005(In thousands, except ratio amounts)Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes

$
126,366


$
(19,281
)

$
(37,563
)

$
(65,188
)

$
(24,966
)Interest expense, net


201,995



213,333



239,015



227,206



208,264Amortization of capitalized interest


2,261



2,872



3,069



2,678



2,357Amortization of debt issuance costs


5,520



5,070



4,884



5,998



8,613Interest component of rent
    expense(1)


6,237



6,289



5,787



5,755



5,267Earnings available for fixed charges

$
342,379


$
208,283


$
215,192


$
176,449


$
199,535Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net

$
201,995


$
213,333


$
239,015


$
227,206


$
208,264Capitalized interest


3,527



4,273



3,818



3,603



3,756Amortization of debt issuance cost


5,520



5,070



4,884



5,998



8,613Interest component of rent
    expense(1)


6,237



6,289



5,787



5,755



5,267Total fixed charges

$
217,279


$
228,965


$
253,504


$
242,562


$
225,900Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


1.58















Deficiency of earnings over fixed charges

$



$
(20,682
)

$
(38,312
)

$
(66,113
)

$
(26,365
)     (1)
    
    A reasonable approximation (one-third) is deemed to be the
    interest factor included in rental expense.
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00418-CR

____________

MARIO RAMIREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1211465

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant, 

has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not 

delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to 

issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Henry R.
Nothhaft, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ Henry R. Nothhaft                
|Henry R. Nothhaft                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 4, 2008                     

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael Anthofer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Michael Anthofer                                
|Michael Anthofer                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 4, 2008                                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.