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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

September 9, 2010 

0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141108 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141108 

 COA: 295970 

Berrien CC: 05-402149-FC 

TIMOTHY LOFTON, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2010 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).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 24, 2020

t1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2020

161193

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161193

COA: 346063

Wayne CC: 17

- 010813

- FC

MARTIN GARCIA MARTINEZ, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2020

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                        OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

               [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]


April 10, 2001


Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:  The U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc. Principal-Plus Variable Annuity
     Separate Account VA I
     Registration on Form N-4; SEC File No. 333-46594

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under The U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc. Principal-Plus
Variable Annuity policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the policies,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      policies,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
      reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Surrender Charges

(v)   Any applicable rider fees or charges
<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2001
Page 2


The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of The U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc. Principal-
Plus Variable Annuity, to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which
is within the range of industry practice with respect to comparable variable
annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred.  Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges.  In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the registration statement.



/s/ R. Gene Hauser
-------------------------
R. Gene Hauser
Associate Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
(formerly PFL Life Insurance Company)
No. 42984.

#### Petitions 5831-R, etc., of Fred Haslam & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

The petitions were dismissed.
No. 56511.

protest 177718-K (New York).

#### A. W. Salter & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in *the*case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
Case No. 9,138.

#### MARSTELLER v. M’CLEAN.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 550.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1809.

Practice at Law — Rule-Dat — Plea op Limitations — Under What Conditions.

The court will not permit the statute of limitations to be pleaded to an action of trespass for mesne profits after the rule-day, but upon payment of all antecedent costs and a continuance of the cause.

Trespass for mesne profits.

Mr. Taylor, counsel and attorney for defendant, made affidavit that the plea of not guilty only had been entered in the office, without his knowledge or consent; that he did not attend at the rules when the plea was put in; and that he had been instructed by his client and always intended to plead the statute of limitations. It was admitted that the defendant had only appeared to the ejectment as guardian of Kirk, but by mistake he was not named as guardian.

Mr. Taylor, now offered to file the plea of limitations.

THE COURT

permitted him to file it, on payment of all antecedent costs and a continuance or postponement at the option of the plaintiff.
Before the Second Division,

July 22, 1940

No. 44127.

#### Protest 914406-G of John M. L. Gorett (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following *Oppleman*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 227, C. D. 240) the protest was overruled.
Case: 2:11-cv-00039-ALM-TPK Doc #: 21 Filed: 11/14/11 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T09:38:12-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
HAROLD ALLAN PATE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 2473

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Holmes County

. Colby Peel, Acting Judge

.

Harold Allan Pate, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney

G eneral, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0297 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-205-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
EXHIBIT 32






CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Capitol Federal Financial, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Kent G. Townsend, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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; and









2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such Report.




Date: November 29, 2010  By: John B. Dicus signature


John B. Dicus, Chairman, President and


Chief Executive Officer






Date: November 29, 2010













Kent G. Townsend, Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Florence Riesner v. Leo Riesner.

176 Sou. 765.

Division A.

Opinion Filed October 28, *1937.*

*Walsh, Beckham & Ellis,*for Appellant;

*Harold E. Kassewits*and *Marion E. Sibley,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on application for suit money and alimony. The petition was referred to the Honorable Paul Barns, to make findings of fact as to the faculties of the parties. His report has' been submitted to *763the Court and has been considered in connection with the record in the cause.

The record shows that the appellant was the movant in the court below when she filed there a suit for divorce. The appellee was defendant there and filed answer and counterclaim, praying for divorce. The final decree held that there were equities to be considered in 'both the bill of complaint and the counterclaim, but that the equities are in favor of the defendant on his' counterclaim and that he is entitled to a divorce from the complainant. So the decree granted the divorce and required the appellee to pay to the appellant the sum of $40.00 per week for the support and care of her minor son, custody of whom was awarded to her, and required appellant to pay the sum of $750.00 solicitor’s fees and court costs and awarded to appellant certain personal property.

The report as to the faculties of the parties made by the " Honorable Paul Barns, Circuit Judge, is' that appellee is worth approximately $25,000.00; that appellant has received since the final decree the sum of $1,680.00 from appellee in addition to attorney’s fees and costs; that appellant has received $1,460.00 as rents from property given to her by the appellee; that appellant has paid about $50.00 on mortgage on the property and that the amortization payments due on the mortgage amount to $110.00 per month, which includes principal, interest and taxes'; that at the present time, appellant has on hand the approximate sum of $100.00 out of $3,140.00 received by her since the entry of the final decree which was on November 9, 1936.

All matters considered, the judgment of this Court that the appellant, being the movant in the court below, is not in position of a wife who has been forced into court by an original suit brought by the husband, but is entitled to and *764is hereby awarded the sum of $200.00 solicitor’s fees and the costs of making up transcript of record incident to the; appeal here and the filing fee required to be paid in this Court, all of which shall be paid by the appellee.

So ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.11(b)



                         FIFTH INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT
                         -----------------------------


     WHEREAS, J. Crew Group, Inc. (the "Company") maintains the J. Crew Group,
Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan");

     WHEREAS, Section 4.12 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended by
the Committee at any time, with exceptions not here material;

     WHEREAS, the Committee wishes to amend the Plan, subject to shareholder
approval, to increase the number of shares of common stock reserved for issuance
upon exercise of options awarded under the Plan;

     WHEREAS, all defined terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in
the Plan unless specifically defined herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, subject to shareholder
approval, as follows:

     1.  The reference to "1,810,000 shares of Common Stock" in the first
sentence of Section 4 of the Plan shall be replaced with a reference to
"1,910,000 shares of Common Stock".


July 24, 2000
#### Harriet Beal, App’lt, v. The N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., Resp’t.

*O. W. White,*for app’lt; *O. L. Prescott,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Affirming 4 N. Y. State Rep., 174.
(Reap. Dec. 9288)

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 15445, etc.

(Decided January 8, 1959)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, were submitted for decision by counsel for the parties upon a stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made part hereof, consists of plywood exported from Finland in the years 1955 and 1956 and that the merchandise is properly valued on the basis of foreign value as defined in Section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similiar (sic] merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was, the appraised values, less *4%*net packed.

On tbe agreed facts I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise covered by the said appeals, and that said value in each case was the appraised value, less 4 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly..
Exhibit 32.1





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 the annual report of Imobolis, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Julian Spitari, certify, pursuant to 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; 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: July 14, 2011





/s/ Julian SpitariJulian Spitari, Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
(Reap. Dec. 10513)

#### Hurricane Import Co. (Mojonier) et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 38721, etc.

(Decided May 16, 1963)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the merchandise marked “R” and initialed CE (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner 0. Fleischman (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” hereto annexed.

> 2. That as so limited, the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *G-itlcm Go.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 4. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the amounts marked “X” in red ink by the Examiner; and that on or about the said time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> 5. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in said Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find 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 for the merchandise in question were the ap*473praised values, less the amounts marked “X” in red ink by the examiner on the invoices covering the said merchandise.

J udgment will be entered accordingly.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-vsMARK E. WYANT

________________________________

Case No. 2:11-CR-051 (1)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to

Rule 11, F.R.Cr.P. and has entered a plea of guilty to Count one of

the Information. After examining the Defendant under oath concerning

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determine that the

defendant is competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that

the guilty plea is knowingly and voluntary made and that the offenses

charged are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each

of the essential elements of such offense. 

 I therefore RECOMMEND the plea agreement and the plea of

guilty should be accepted and the Defendant should be adjudged guilty

and sentenced accordingly. Otherwise, the plea agreement should be

rejected and the defendant should be allowed to withdraw the guilty

plea. 

The Defendant remains on bond pending sentencing. 

Date: May 9, 2011 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and

Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service

shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and

Recommendation before the assigned United States District Judge. 28

U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B).

Case: 2:11-cr-00051-PCE Doc #: 13 Filed: 05/09/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

:

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER :

SERVICE CORPORATION, et al., :

 :

Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:10-cv-00984

:

v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

:

DEKORON UNITHERM LLC, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK R. ABEL

:

Defendant. :

:

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Dekoron Unitherm LLC’s Motion to

Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. On February 24, 2001, the Plaintiffs filed an

Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated: May 31, 2011

Case: 2:10-cv-00984-ALM-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 05/31/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-128-11

Monty L. Shelton 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 221) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: August 15, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00128-JLG-TPK Doc #: 250 Filed: 08/15/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 53096.

#### A. S. Leather Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 54343-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.