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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk 

# Order

September 2, 2009

139501

_____________ _______________ _____________

In re ELIJAH JEREMI AH WELLONS, Minor.

_____________ _______________ _____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 139501 COA: 289607 Oakland CC Family Division: 08-745308-NA KANIQUE TASHAWN WELLONS, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 23, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### CITY PEST CONTROL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v, William J. HORTON, Appellee.

No. 0-117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1971.

Gary B. Tullís, and William E. Scheu, Jr., of Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Ball, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Hutcheson, Forbes & Lassiter, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ, concur.
Exhibit (6)(b)

 

----
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Judd David HOFFMAN, Appellee.

Nos. 70-283 to 70-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

Lurie & Capuano, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and MARTIN, HENRY F., Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal by the state of Florida from orders of dismissal entered by the Criminal Court of Record for *148Dade County, Florida, in four separate cases wherein the defendant-appellee was charged with felonies arising out of his alleged possession, sale and delivery of LSD. The trial court’s orders of dismissal were on the ground that these were not offenses in violation of Section 404.02, Fla.Stat., F. S.A.

We are in accord with the State’s contention that the trial court erred in the entry of the orders of dismissal. We hold that the informations did charge acts that are in violation of Section 404.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See State v. Hayles, Fla. 1970, 240 So.2d 1.

Reversed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,978

EX PARTE JAVIER MADRID, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20030D02109-346-1 IN THE 346TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to sixty (60) years’ imprisonment. The Eight Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Madrid v. State, No AP-08-04-00279-CR (Tex. App.– El Paso, 2006, no pet.)(not designated for

publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel failed to timely notify him that his conviction

had been affirmed and that he had a right to petition for discretionary review pro se.
Madrid -- 2

On January 16, 2008, this Court remanded this application to the trial court to get an affidavit

from counsel. In response to this order, the trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of

law recommending that Applicant be granted an out-of-time petition for discretionary review. 

Based on our review of the record, we find that Applicant was deprived of his right to file

a petition for discretionary review pro se. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary

review of the judgment of the Eighth Court of Appeals in Cause No. AP-08-04-00279-CR that

affirmed his conviction in Case No. 20030D02109-346-1 from the 346th Judicial District Court of

El Paso County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Eight Court of

Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: August 20, 2008

Do not publish
#### Madonna POTOCK, a single woman, Petitioner, v. Samuel L. TUREK, M.D., Respondent.

No. 39279.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed. 227 So.2d 724.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2017-2223

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01534-SLR-SRF, Judge 

Sue L. Robinson.

______________________

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND 

REHEARING EN BANC

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK,

MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN,

HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc., filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on May 10, 
2 SRI INT’L, INC. v. CISCO SYS., INC.

2019. A response to the petition was invited by the court 

and filed by Appellee SRI International, Inc. The petition 

was referred to the panel that heard the appeal and was 

thereafter referred to the circuit judges who are in regular 

active service.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1) The petition for panel rehearing is granted in part 

and denied in part. See accompanying order.

2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. 

3) The mandate of this court will issue on August 19,

2019.

 FOR THE COURT

 July 12, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------



    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  James  K.  McHugh,  as  the  Chief Financial Officer of N-Viro International
Corporation, certify that (i) the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information  contained  in  the  Form  10-K  fairly  presents,  in  all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  N-Viro
International  Corporation.


/s/  James  K.  McHugh
----------------------
James  K.  McHugh,  Chief  Financial  Officer
March  31,  2010
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6725

ROYMAD SHAQUIL MCDANIEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JACOB SCOTT SAXON; K

- 9 MAGNUM; RICHARD A. FINCH, JR.; ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv
- 01939

- RMG )

Submitted : September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Roymad Shaquil McDaniel , Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Todd Coffee , LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP , Anderson, South Carolina ; Steven Michael Pruitt , MC DONALD, PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC , Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roymad Shaquil McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistra te judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed. In civil cases, pa rties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court entered its order on De cember 2, 2019

. McDaniel filed the notice of appeal , at the earliest, on February 20 , 2020 . Because McDaniel failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OF THE U.S SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sense Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Rule 13a-14(b), that to his 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.

October 22, 2010
|  

 

/S/ BRUCE E. SCHREINER 

Bruce E. Schreiner, President 

(principal financial and accounting officer)

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH
REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                       439
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,952
<PP&E>                                       1,472,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,463,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,242
<BONDS>                                        451,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    136,065
<COMMON>                                       818,732
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,463,215
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,160
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,492
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99


</TABLE>
#### Gregory HIGHTOWER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-398.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1970.

Gregory Hightower, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL, and BARKDULL, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant *72with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full, examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
T HE S TATE EX REL
. C OWDREY , A PPELLANT , v. I NDUSTRIAL C OMMISSION OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , ET AL
. [Cite as State ex rel. Cowdrey v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Workers’ compensation – Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-478 – Submitted October 27, 1998 – Decided December 30, 1998.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD03-325.

__________________ Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy; and Thomas W. Condit , for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery , Attorney General, and William J. McDonald , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

__________________ The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.
M OYER , C.J., R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER , C OOK and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., concur. D OUGLAS , J., dissents.
## C H M :J2 0 rt’

0 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMANDA GESSNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 13-22 Erie

)

LT. NIXON, et al, )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff's complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on January 22, 2013, and was 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for Report and 

Recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1), and Rules 

72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on September 18, 2013, 

recommended that Plaintiff=s motion for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining 

order [Doc. No. 27] be denied for lack of personal jurisdiction over the persons that Plaintiff 

seeks to enjoin.

The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file Objections. 

Service was made on Plaintiff by mail at SCI Muncy, where she is incarcerated, and on 

Defendants. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the pleadings and documents 

in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following order is entered:

Case 1:13-cv-00022-SPB Document 39 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 2
2

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2013, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that 

Plaintiff=s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 27] 

is DENIED for lack of personal jurisdiction over the persons that Plaintiff seeks to enjoin.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated September 18, 2013, 

is adopted as the Opinion of this Court.

s/ Arthur J. Schwab 

Arthur J. Schwab

United States District Judge

cc: All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties

Susan Paradise Baxter

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:13-cv-00022-SPB Document 39 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         24,535
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  51,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,883
<INVENTORY>                                    49,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,830
<PP&E>                                         150,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                 26,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 555,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,611
<BONDS>                                        286,939
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       98
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   555,283
<SALES>                                        555,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               559,972
<CGS>                                          472,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  474,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               55,425
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             35,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (76)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,371)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.55)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52710-52711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26771]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-543-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

October 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 30, 1997, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No.1, certain revised tariff sheets which 
tariff sheets are enumerated in Appendix A attached to the filing. The 
proposed tariff sheets are proposed to be effective November 1, 1997.
    Transco states that the instant filing is submitted pursuant to 
Section 44 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transco's Volume No. 
1 Tariff which provides that Transco will reflect in its rates the 
costs incurred for the transportation and compression of gas by others 
(TBO). Section 44 provides that Transco will file to reflect net 
changes in its TBO rates at least 30 days prior to the November 1 
effective date of each annual TBO filing.
    Transco states that Appendix B attached to the filing sets forth 
Transco's estimated TBO demand costs for the period November 1, 1997 
through October 31, 1998, and the derivation of the TBO unit rate 
reflected on the tariff sheets included in Appendix A.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any Person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888

[[Page 52711]]

First Street, Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 
385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 
motions or protests must filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26771 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302*
             Date: November 26, 2007By:
    /s/ Robin ListName:
    Robin ListTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer 
 *
    
    The introductory portion of paragraph 4 of the Section 302 certification that refers to the
certifying officers responsibility for establishing and maintaining internal control over
financial reporting for the company, as well as paragraph 4(b), have been omitted in
accordance with Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006) because the compliance period has been
extended for small business issuers until the first fiscal year ending on or after December
15, 2007.
#### ROYAL GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. Albert R. SANGSTER, et al., Respondents.

No. 39324.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 10, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 189]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ189.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 1931]]

Public Law 104-189
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To redesignate the Dunning Post Office in Chicago, Illinois, as the 
   ``Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office''. <<NOTE: Aug. 20, 1996 -  [H.R. 
                                3834]>> 

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Dunning Post Office, located at 6441 West Irving Park Road, 
Chicago, Illinois, shall be redesignated and known as the ``Roger P. 
McAuliffe Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roger P. 
McAuliffe Post Office''.

    Approved August 20, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3834:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            July 30, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```