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

, 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 February 7, 2013

jam 

# Order

February 7, 2013

1 46658 ( 3 )

GEORGE C. BENTON, JR.

,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 1 46658

A GC : 0052

- 13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

,

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 40 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result i n the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$3 35 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-286]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Secretary of Transportation Has Now Determined That Eldorado 
International Airport, Bogota, Colombia, Maintains and Carries Out 
Effective Security Measures

Notice

    By notice published on September 21, 1995, I announced that I had 
determined that Eldorado International Airport, Bogota, Colombia, did 
not maintain and administer effective security measures and that, 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44907(d), I was providing public notification of 
that determination. I now find that Eldorado International Airport 
maintains and carries out effective security measures. My determination 
is based on a recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) assessment 
which reveals that security measures used at the airport now meet or 
exceed the Standards and Recommended Practices established by the 
International Civil Aviation Organization.
    I have directed that a copy of this notice be published in the 
Federal Register and that the news media be notified of my 
determination. In addition, as a result of this determination, the FAA 
will direct that signs posted in U.S. airports relating to my September 
15, 1995, determination be removed, and U.S. and foreign air carriers 
will no longer be required to provide notice of that determination to 
passengers purchasing tickets for transportation between the United 
States and Bogota, Colombia.

    Dated: December 20, 1996.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 97-286 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,203
<SECURITIES>                                    17,053
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                       649
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,969
<PP&E>                                          33,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,806
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           233
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,952
<SALES>                                         15,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,823
<CGS>                                           11,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (115)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)


</TABLE>
|    |                                                                                                      |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Novan, Inc. (the “registrant”); and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                |
|----------------|
|                |  |  |
|           | By: | /s/ G. Kelly Martin |
| April 30, 2019 |   | G. Kelly Martin |
|           |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|           |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### Clyde J. MIRE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHEVRON OIL COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 6217.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1977.

William H. Mouton, Lafayette, and Aaron, Aaron & Chambers, Noble M. Chambers, Jr., Crowley, for defendants-appellants.

Pugh, Buatt, Landry & Pugh, Lawrence G. Pugh, Jr. and Timothy A. Jones, Edwards, Stefanski & Barousse, Homer E. Barousse, Jr., Jerry Page Harmon, Crowley, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and FORET, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS

FORET, Judge.

The plaintiff-appellee, Clyde J. Mire, moves to dismiss the suspensive appeal of the defendants-appellants, Chevron Oil Company and Exxon Corporation, on the grounds that the order of appeal set a return date in excess of that permitted under LSA-C.C.P. art. 2125. The motion is opposed.

We deny the motion.

A final judgment was read and signed on March 14, 1977, and notices of judgment were mailed on March 16, 1977. On April 14, 1977 the defendants timely moved for, and were granted, a suspensive appeal, returnable to this court on July 12,1977. The defendants timely perfected their appeal by filing their appeal bond on April 14, 1977.

On June 9, 1977 the defendants filed a Motion to Amend Return Date of Appeal, requesting that the original return date entered by the clerk and/or trial judge, July 12, 1977, be amended to June 12, 1977 to comply with the requirements of LSA-C. C.P. art. 2125. An order was signed by the trial court on June 9, 1977 resetting the return date to June 12, 1977.

On June 9,1977 the Clerk requested from the trial court a 30-day extension of the return day of June 12, 1977, and on the same date the trial court granted the request, extending the return date to July 12, 1977. The record was filed with this court on June 20, 1977.

On June 23, 1977 the plaintiff-appellee timely filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal of the defendants on the grounds that the originally set return date was improperly set under LSA-C.C.P. art. 2125, which, “warrants the dismissal of the appeal.”

We disagree, and judge the issue moot, for the trial court, upon the request of the defendants-appellants, corrected the error *872prior to the passage of the proper return date which should have been set under LSA-C.C.P. art. 2125. *Cramer v. Brown,*26 La.Ann. 272. Even so, the appeal should not be dismissed, as the error was that of the clerk and/or trial judge, and an appeal “shall not be dismissed because of any irregularity, error, or defect unless it is imputable to the appellant.” LSA-C.C.P. art. 2161. *Vinyard*v. *Stassi,*152 So. 161 (La.App.1st Cir.1934) and cases cited therein.

For the reasons assigned the motion of the plaintiff-appellee to dismiss the appeal of the defendants-appellants is hereby denied.

MOTION DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2900]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AZ-050-07-1220-00; 8322]


California: Temporary Closure of Senator Wash Reservoir to All 
Types of Boating, Imperial County, California

AGENCY: Bureau of the Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Temporary Closure of Senator Wash Reservoir to all 
types of boating: April 25, 1997, through April 27, 1997, and June 13, 
1997, through June 15, 1997.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that all types of boating are 
temporarily prohibited on the water surface of Senator Wash Reservoir. 
The closure area is within sections 31 and 32, T. 14 S., R. 24 E. and 
sections 5 and 6, T. 15 S., R. 24 E. San Bernardino Meridian, 
California. The area affected by the closure contains 353 acres more or 
less at the high water mark of Senator Wash Reservoir.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The temporary closure of Senator Wash 
Reservoir to all non-event watercraft is being implemented for health 
and safety concerns during a water ski tournament sponsored by 
International Novice Tournaments (INT) to be held April 25 through 
April 27, 1997, and June 13 through June 15, 1997. The surface area of 
the water is not expected to allow dispersal of waves created by 
traditional boating use during the water ski tournament. Wave action 
during this type of event greatly increases the potential for serious 
accident or injury to participants. This closure shall apply to all 
persons and watercraft except those permitted by a Bureau of Land 
Management Officer and shall remain in effect until 6:00 p.m. on the 
event completion dates. Authority for this action is contained in 43 
CFR 8364.1. Violation of this regulation is punishable by a fine not to 
exceed $100,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months. A map of 
the boating access closure area is available at the Yuma Field Office, 
2555 Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365.

EFFECTIVE DATES: April 25, 1997, through April 27, 1997, and June 13, 
1997, through June 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Reid, Yuma Field Office, 2555 
Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365 (520) 317-3274.

    Dated: January 28, 1997.
Merv Boyd,
Assistant Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-2900 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
Exhibit 32.2

















CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Monar International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Roberto Roman, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 18th day of November, 2013.








ROBERTO ROMAN, JR.Roberto Roman, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of PMX Communities, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Timothy B. Shannon
                                 ----------------------
                                 Michael C. Hiler
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

April 2, 2010
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45240

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LURA H. DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 343

Filed: January 31, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Order dismissing I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Lura H. Davis pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. 

I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Davis to a unified term of seven years, 

with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court retained jurisdiction, 

thereafter suspended the sentence, and placed Davis on probation. Davis violated her probation, 

and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of Davis’s original sentence. 

Davis filed an untimely I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Davis appeals.
2

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 provides that a district court has discretion to consider and act 

upon a motion filed within fourteen days of the order revoking probation. The filing limitations 

provided by Rule 35 are a jurisdictional limit on the authority of the court to consider the motion 

and, unless filed within the period, a district court lacks jurisdiction to grant any relief. State v. 

Sutton, 113 Idaho 832, 833, 748 P.2d 416, 417 (Ct. App. 1987). In this case, Davis 

acknowledges that her Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence was untimely. Because Davis’s 

Rule 35 motion was not filed within the fourteen-day limitation provided by the rule, the district 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order 

dismissing Davis’s Rule 35 motion.
#### CHARLES SALES CORPORATION, Charles Sales Corporation of Orlando, Inc., and Joseph Gordon, Appellants, v. James G. HODGSKIN, also known as J. G. Hodgskin, Jean R. Hodgskin, Thomas P. Rausch, also known as T. P. Rausch, Margie M. Rausch, Audrey L. Nichols, also known as A. L. Nichols, each individually, and James G. Hodgskin, Thomas P. Rausch and Audrey L. Nichols d/b/a Jateo Company, a partnership, and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Deland, and Aaron Nathan, Appellees.

No. 69-253.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 22, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1970.

Eli H. Subin, of Roth, Segal & Levine, Orlando, for appellants.

William T. Moore, of Moore, Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellees Hodgskins, Rauschs, Nichols, Jateo Company and First Federal.

*107PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs, record, and oral argument, we are of the opinion that the appellants have failed to demonstrate error and have thus failed to carry their burden on appeal. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED, J., and Mac-MILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge, concur.
##### Table of Contents

**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 20-F**

 

OR 

 

OR 

 

OR 

 

Commission File Number: 1-34694 

**VIMPELCOM LTD.**

 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) 

**Bermuda**

 

(Jurisdiction of incorporation ororganization) 

**Claude Debussylaan 88, 1082 MD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands**

 

(Address of principal executiveoffices) 

**Jeffrey D. McGhie**

**Group General Counsel**

**Claude Debussylaan 88, 1082 MD, Amsterdam, theNetherlands**

**Tel: +31 20 797 7200**

**Fax: +31 20 797 7201**

 

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person) 

**Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:**
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60488

Summary Calendar

PERPETUA RAMIRO PAGALLAMAN, also known as Petty Pagallaman,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A097-242-160

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Perpetua Ramiro Pagallaman is a native and citizen of the Philippines.

She petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA), dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge

(IJ) that she is removable and not eligible for discretionary relief from removal.

Pagallaman has waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that she is

removable and not eligible for cancellation of removal by failing to challenge this

determination in her petition for review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 7, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-60488 Document: 00511257315 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2010
No. 09-60488

833 (5th Cir. 2003). Further, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Pagallaman’s

claims that her procedural due process rights were violated because she failed

to present the claims to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389

F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2

Case: 09-60488 Document: 00511257315 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2010
#### Stephen M. Chapman, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Wm. L. White, *et al.,*Plaintiffs in Error.

1. *Practice, civil*— New *trial, motion for*— Yerdict—Arrest *of judgment, motion in.*— An objection to a general Yerdict onapetition containing two counts, that it does not specify the amount found due on each count, will not be considered • by this court, if it was not alleged in the motion for a new trial or in arrest.

*Error to Stoddard Circuit Court.*

*Kitchen 8?*McGinness, for Plaintiffs in Error.

When there are two counts in a petition, jury must say in their verdict on which they find. (Whittelsey’s Practice, 392, 393, § 324, and authorities cited ; Clark’s Adm’r vs. Han. & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 36 Mo., 215.)

*Myers §■*Litton, for Defendant in Error.

It is too late to raise this objection to the verdict. It should have been made in the motion in arrest, so that the lower court could have had an opportunity of correcting any error it may have committed.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action for money had and received by the defendant and for services rendered by plaintiffs for defendant. The answer is not copied into the record, but the record states that the answer was a general denial.

The plaintiffs gave evidence conducing to prove their ease and the jury found a general verdict for plaintiffs without specifying on what count they found. There was a motion for a new trial which was overruled.

The point raised here is, that the jury did not find on each count or specify on what count they found their verdict, and as *180no such reason was given in the motion for a new trial or in arrest, we cannot consider it here. The object of such motion is to give the court below a chance to correct apy errors that occurred before the final judgment.

There were some questions asked some of the witnesses on cross-examination by the defendant, which were ruled out by the court.

It does not appear that the answers to the questions could have had any material effect on the case, and we cannot see that there was an error in refusing to allow them to be answered.

On the whole record I see no error sufficient to justify a reversal. Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other Judges concur.
|Exhibit 99.1


WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


The undersigned hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2002 filed by Group 1 Software, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Robert S. Bowen
Robert S. Bowen
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
/s/ Mark Funston
Mark Funston
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------