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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

June 23, 2009 

p0616 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

139009 & (16)(17) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139009 

 COA: 291194 

Saginaw CC: 08-031674-FH 

LEONARR TIONDRE MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should now be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

June 25, 2013

h0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

146028

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146028

COA: 302702

Macomb CC: 2010

- 003534

- FC

WILLIE COOPER, III,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2012

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-30408

_______________

KURT M. SCHNEIDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

GEORGE A. HORMEL & CO., ALAN RASELL,

and

HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1264"L”)

_________________________

August 26, 1997

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kurt Schneider appeals an adverse jury verdict on his claim

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.

§ 621 et seq. We have reviewed the briefs submitted on appeal and

applicable portions of the record and have heard the oral arguments

of counsel. The primary issue appears to be whether the jury
charge reversibly failed to instruct that the jury could infer

discrimination from the plaintiff's proof of the prima facie case

and pretext. 

We conclude that the charge could have been more specific in

specifying that the jury could infer a discriminatory motive from

a finding of pretext. Nothing in the charge, however, indicates

that the jury was prohibited from drawing that inference. Neither

the charge nor any of the other rulings of the district court that

are complained of constitute reversible error.

The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-421-804]


Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands; 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Extension of Time Limit

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit of the final results of the antidumping duty administrative 
review of Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands. 
This review covers the period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Linda Ludwig, Office 
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0405 
or 482-3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to the complexity of issues involved in 
this case, it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
original time limit. The Department is extending the time limit for 
completion of the final results until March 8, 1998, in accordance with 
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. See memorandum to Robert S. 
La Russa from Joseph A. Spetrini regarding the extension of case 
deadline, dated November xx, 1997.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 97-31937 Filed 12-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
# Baseline
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

MEDALIST BUILDING GROUP, LLC , a Florida Limited Liability Company, JEREMY D. LEMASTER and JESSICA M. LEMASTER, his wife, PALM CITY SUNSET, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, MEDALIST HOMES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 376

[ January 30, 2020 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Mart in County ; William L. Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No.
2016CA001353

.

Carri S. Leininger and Jessica R. Butler of Williams, Leininger & Crosby, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellant.

William D. Anderson, Jr. and P. Christine Deruelle of William D. Anderson, Jr. , P.A., Stuart, for appellees.

Affirmed.

M AY
, G ERBER and C ONNER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 99-1180-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Kelly Jean Hutchinson;

01-181-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Kelly Corder Hutchinson; 01-261-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Kelly

Cardona; 01-342-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Kelly J. Hutchinson, all pending in the County Court at Law, Val

Verde County, Texas, the Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez presiding. This court has confirmed that the County Court at

Law dismissed all cause numbers pending against relator.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00906-CR

IN RE Kelly Jean CARDONA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On December 15, 2008, relator Kelly Jean Cardona filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

seeking to compel the trial court to rule on relator’s pending motions. On February 26, 2009, the

trial court signed four orders dismissing the charges pending against relator in the Val Verde County

Court. In light of the trial court’s action, the complaint presented in relator’s petition is now moot.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,535
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,696)
<INVENTORY>                                     15,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,145
<PP&E>                                         751,770
<DEPRECIATION>                               (311,606)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 634,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,151
<BONDS>                                        121,356
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,776
<OTHER-SE>                                     321,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   634,027
<SALES>                                         93,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,751
<CGS>                                           85,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   334
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,021)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,491)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie C. SWANSON, Petitioner, v. The Honorable William K. LOVE, as Judge of the Circuit Court, in and for Polk County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-922.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 6, 1974.

*113Lex M. Taylor, Jr., Lakeland, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

MANN, Chief Judge.

On April 17, 1973, Swanson was taken into custody, charged with robbery. Swanson was unable to raise the fee his private counsel required and was assigned counsel, who moved for a continuance. A jury trial originally set for June 5, 1973 was reset for June 12. On June 5, the State Attorney filed a notice of nolle prosequi which indicated that Swanson’s presence on the scene was for a legal purpose. On September 25, 1973, a second information charging Swanson with the same crime was filed. A jury trial was set for November 6, 1973, but in the meantime Swanson sought prohibition, alleging that trial must take place within 180 days of his original arrest. The State responds that delay chargeable to the accused, though prior to the nolle prosequi, enlarges the time. We agree with the State’s contention. CrPR 3.191(h)(2), 33 F.S.A. provides :

> “The intent and effect of this Rule shall not be avoided by the State by entering a nolle prosequi to a crime charged and by prosecuting a new crime grounded on the same conduct or criminal episode, or otherwise by prosecuting new or different charges based on the same conduct or criminal episode whether or not the pending charge is suspended, continued, or is the subject of entry of a nolle prosequi.”

It is beyond doubt that the time within which the State must bring Swanson to trial begins to run when he is taken into custody. CrPR 3.191(a)(1). CrPR 3.191(d)(3) and CrPR 3.191(f) indicate that the accused’s actions may have the effect of extending the time. So the question before us is whether delays attributable to the accused following an initial information enlarge the 180 days within which the trial must be held under a second information. We think the time is so enlarged. We cannot judge, on this record, the question whether Swanson is chargeable with 27 days delay, as the State contends, which would make the trial timely. We hold that if he is chargeable under Rule 3.191 with any delay, that time is to be tacked to the 180 days to determine the latest permissible trial date. The trial judge may determine this question.

Prohibition denied. Petitioner will remain at liberty under the conditions imposed in our prior order unless the trial court, for good cause shown, shall amend or revoke that order.

BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2207 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for purposes of the tax 

on private foundation excess business holdings to treat as outstanding 

any employee-owned stock purchased by a business enterprise pursuant 

to certain employee stock ownership retirement plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2021 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for purposes 

of the tax on private foundation excess business holdings 

to treat as outstanding any employee-owned stock purchased by a business enterprise pursuant to certain employee stock ownership retirement plans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2207 IH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PURCHASES OF EMPLOYEE-OWNED 

2 STOCK DISREGARDED FOR PURPOSES OF 

3 FOUNDATION TAX ON EXCESS BUSINESS 

4 HOLDINGS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4943(c)(4)(A) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new clause: 

8 ‘‘(v) For purposes of clause (i), subpara9 graph (D), and paragraph (2), any voting stock 

10 which— 

11 ‘‘(I) is not readily tradable on an es12 tablished securities market, 

13 ‘‘(II) is purchased by the business en14 terprise on or after January 1, 2005, from 

15 an employee stock ownership plan (as de16 fined in section 4975(e)(7)) in which em17 ployees of such business enterprise partici18 pate, in connection with a distribution 

19 from such plan, and 

20 ‘‘(III) is held by the business enter21 prise as treasury stock, cancelled, or re22 tired, 

23 shall be treated as outstanding voting stock, but 

24 only to the extent so treating such stock would 

25 not result in permitted holdings exceeding 49 

26 percent (determined without regard to this 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2207 IH

1 clause). The preceding sentence shall not apply 

2 with respect to the purchase of stock from a 

3 plan during the 10-year period beginning on the 

4 date the plan is established.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act and to pur9 chases by a business enterprise of voting stock in 

10 taxable years beginning before, on, or after the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act. 

12 (2) SPECIAL RULE FOR GRANDFATHERED

13 FOUNDATIONS IN CASE OF DECREASE IN OWNER14 SHIP BY REASON OF PRE-ENACTMENT PUR15 CHASES.—Section 4943(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Internal 

16 Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply with respect 

17 to any decrease in the percentage of holdings in a 

18 business enterprise by reason of the application of 

19 section 4943(c)(4)(A)(v) of such Code (as added by 

20 this section). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1








Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,


18
U.S.C. Section 1350











I,
Colleen Foyo, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Raj Ventures, Inc. (the
“Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:




1.  the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2009 (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
Corporation.





Date:  March
31, 2010








By:/s/
Colleen
Foyo


Colleen
Foyo


President,
Secretary and Treasurer


(Principal Executive and Accounting
Officer)
Exhibit 32

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Consolidated Natural Gas Company (the Company), certify that:

1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") of the Company to which this certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)).
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2004 and for the period then ended.





|/s/ Thos E. CappsThos. E. Capps
Chief Executive Officer
August 4, 2004
|----------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Thomas N. ChewningThomas N. Chewning
Executive Vice President and 
Chief Financial Officer 
August 4, 2004
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.1

I, Thos. E. Capps, certify that:

          1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated Natural Gas Company:

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; 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d- 5(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 5, 2004
 
 
      /s/ Thos. E. Capps
#### Winston Morse THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-485.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Marvin E. SHIPES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM-

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of TruServ Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's knowledge:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 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 as of the dates and for the
                  periods expressed in the Report.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/ PAMELA FORBES LIEBERMAN
----------------------------------------
Pamela Forbes Lieberman
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ DAVID A. SHADDUCK
----------------------------------------
David A. Shadduck
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TruServ Corporation and will be retained by TruServ Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 15   May 8, 2009   Northeast Utilities
107 Selden Street
Berlin, Connecticut 06037  We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of Northeast Utilities and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report dated May 8, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.  We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-141425 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-63144, 333-121364 and 333-142724 on Forms S-8.  We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.   /s/Deloitte & Touche LLPDeloitte & Touche LLP   Hartford, Connecticut
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Irene WILLIAMS.

No. 62364.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Irene Williams applying for remedial writs. East Baton Rouge Parish.

Writ denied.