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 28, 2010 

p0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140589 & (90) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140589 

 COA: 284245 

Wayne CC: 06-014443-FC 

CAROL ANN POOLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

if

AF 06-0090

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPOINTMENT

OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMISSION ON

PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF MONTANA

APR 1 3 2021

Bowen Greenw000 Clerk of Supreme Cour

State of montan.9

ORDER

Pursuant to Section I of the Rules Establishing the Commission on Practice of the

Supreme Court of the State of Montana (COP), an Order was issued March 19, 2021,

requesting that the Honorable Luke Berger conduct an election for appointment to the COP

among the resident members of the State Bar in COP Area C, and to certify to this Court

the results of that election.

The election was held, and Judge Berger has certified the results to this Court. By

Rule this Court is obligated to appoint from a list of the top three candidates who received

votes in this region. The Court extends its gratitude to all attorneys who expressed an

interest in serving on the Commission.

Based on the election results, the Court hereby appoints the following member to

the Commission on Practice of the Supreme Court of the State of Montana:

Area C:

Brad Belke

P.O. Box 4079

Butte, MT 59702

Effective the date of this Order, Mr. Belke is appointed to a four-year term to expire on

April 1, 2025.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Secretary of State of the

State of Montana for filing, to the Honorable Luke Berger, to Brad Belke, to the State Bar

04/13/2021

Case Number: AF 06-0090
of Montana, to each member of the Commission on Practice, and to Shelly Smith, Office

Administrator for the Commission on Practice.

"r-27-

Dated this k.3 day of April, 2021.

Chief Justice

/#4 

(46 

Justices

2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10195

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH RAY RAINEY, a/k/a Kenny Reine,

a/k/a John Rainy,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:93-CR-99-A

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Ray Rainey appeals from the imposition of a 20-month

prison sentence following revocation of his two-year term of

supervised release. Rainey contends that his sentence violated

the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Clause and was plainly unreasonable.

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to supervised-
No. 96-10195

- 2 -

release-revocation proceedings. United States v. Marmolejo, 915

F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990).

Rainey’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum

applicable to his underlying offense; nor did the sentence exceed

the two-year maximum permitted by the revocation statutes. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 3581(b)(5). Rainey’s punishment did not

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. United States v.

Celestine, 905 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1990).

Rainey’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable. See United

States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1323 (1995). Rainey’s unrepentant conduct

merited the imposition of a stiff prison sentence.

Finally, Rainey’s appeal is frivolous. Counsel has “no duty

to bring frivolous appeals; the opposite is true.” United States

v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

283 (1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 07-60932 Summary Calendar

_____________________ IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL E. McDUFFIE, Debtor MICHAEL E. McDUFFIE, Appellant v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:07-CV-1024) Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Debtor-Appellant Michael E. McDuffie appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court. We review the district court’s dismissal of McDuffie’s appeal in this case for abuse of discretion, that dismissal being grounded in several acts of delay and perceived lack of good faith on the part of the Debtor-Appellant. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk2

As both parties to this appeal have suggested that oral argument is not
warranted, we decide it on the basis of arguments presented in their briefs and the contents of the record on appeal. Having now carefully reviewed the law as presented by the parties and set forth in the rulings of the bankruptcy court and the district court, as applied to the facts reflected in the record on
a ppeal, we are convinced that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing McDuffie’s appeal. Largely on the basis of the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm its dismissal of the subject appeal. AFFIRMED.
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter SOMA

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance Redemptions

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6) (7)

Apr - Jun

2016 Actual (60) (25) 14 (10) 50 364 0

Jul - Sep

2016 Actual 234 222 2 224 (10) 353 0

Oct - Dec

2016 Actual 201 255 (8) 246 46 399 0

Jan - Mar

2017 Actual 335 40 (12) 28 (307) 92 0

Apr - Jun

2017 Actual (75) 35 (22) 14 89 181 0

Jul - Sep

2017 Actual 192 189 (19) 170 (22) 159 0

Oct - Dec

2017 Actual 204 282 (8) 274 70 229 (12)

Jan - Mar

2018 Actual 374 488 (54) 435 61 290 (30)

Apr - Jun

2018 Actual (43) 72 (72) 0 43 333 (48)

Jul - Sep

2018 Actual 212 353 (89) 264 52 385 (66)

Oct - Dec

2018 Actual 291 426 (117) 309 17 402 (91)

Jan - Mar

2019 Actual 375 374 (67) 306 (68) 334 (46)

Apr - Jun

2019 Actual 13 40 (97) (57) (70) 264 (67)

Jul - Sep

2019 Actual 281 440 (40) 400 119 382 (30)

Oct - Dec

2019 Actual 313 330 7 337 24 404 0

Jan - Mar

2020 Actual 365 477 (1) 476 111 515 0

Apr - Jun

2020 Actual 1,526 2,753 (20) 2,733 1207 1722 0

Jul - Sep August 3, 2020 1803 947 (66) 881 (922) 800 0

2020 Actual 401 454 7 461 60 1782 0

Forecast Revisions (1,402) (493) 73 (420) 982 982 0

Oct - Dec August 3, 2020 1209 1216 (7) 1209 0 800 0

2020 November 2, 2020 1546 617 (53) 565 (982) 800 0

Forecast Revisions 337 (599) (45) (645) (982) 0 0

Jan - Mar

2021 November 2, 2020 1123 1127 (4) 1123 0 800 0

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 20 ,

2017

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 16 -00943- CV

JOHN DUNN AND MILBY DUNN, II, Appellants

V.
FARMASSURE LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-23040

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from an order signed October 31, 2016. On July 14, 2017, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Donovan, and Jewell.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FARAH NAZ,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM,

Secretary of Energy

Defendant. 

No. 22-cv-1730 (DLF)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is 

ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, In The Alternative, For Summary 

Judgment, Dkt. 16, is GRANTED. It is further 

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Order, Dkt. 24, is denied as moot. 

SO ORDERED.

________________________ 

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH

September 30, 2023 United States District Judge
Côte d’Ivoire – Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Guarantee (MIGA) for Henri Konan Bedie 

Bridge Project

April 26, 2012

The United States welcomes the discussion on MIGA’s proposal to provide $217.8 million in guarantees 

for the construction of the Henri Konan Bedie Bridge. The project, which consists of 4.7 km of access 

roads and a 1.9 km toll bridge over the Ebrie lagoon in Abidjan, is an important infrastructure 

investment in Cote D’Ivoire. The United States recognizes that the bridge is urgently needed to address 

urban congestion and provides an alternative route before the older Houphouet Boigny Bridge is 

temporarily closed for rehabilitation. As the first toll bridge (or road) in Cote d’Ivoire and one of few in 

Africa, the United States believes that MIGA’s participation is beneficial for ensuring financial viability 

for the project. The United States commends MIGA for remaining committed to the development of 

this project since it won Board approval in 1999, but could not sign the contract of guarantee due to a 

coup d’état and ensuing civil war. 

Henri Konan Bedie Bridge will be the largest investment in Cote d’Ivoire in ten years, with a total cost of 

$363 million. The United States appreciates that this project has the support of other financiers, 

including the West African Development Bank (BOAD), the Dutch Government, Africa Finance 

Corporation, Economic Communitey of West African States’ (ECOWAS) Bank for Investment and 

Development, and the Government of Cote D’Ivoire (GCdI). The United States expects that the project 

will provide important demonstration effects for further private sector initiatives and infrastructure 

investments as the country continues to rebuild after the prolonged period of civil strife. 

The United States would have liked to support this investment in Cote d’Ivoire. Unfortunately, the 

proposal did not adequately evaluate the environmental impact of the Valery Giscard D’Estaing (VGE) 

Interchange – an associated facility for the project, which is central to the financial viability of this 

investment as it will be situated at the end of the toll bridge. Therefore the United States wishes to be 

recorded as abstaining on this investment because of legislative mandates.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32011]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA-97-2352]


LMDS Auction No. 17 Postponed

Released: November 10, 1997.

Report No. AUC-17-C (Auction No. 17)

    In an effort to provide a greater opportunity for prospective 
applicants to participate in the upcoming Local Multipoint Distribution 
Service (``LMDS'') auction, the Commission is postponing the LMDS 
auction, originally scheduled to begin on December 10, 1997, until 
February 18, 1998. This postponement will further opportunities for 
businesses to access additional sources of capital to further the 
advent of new competition in the cable television and local telephony 
marketplaces.
    In addition, applicants will be able to take advantage of the World 
Trade Organization agreement to pursue additional sources of financing 
and investment. The Commission has proposed amendments to its rules in 
response to the WTO agreement. Rules and Policies on Foreign 
Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, Order and Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 7847, 62 FR 32966, June 17, 1997. 
Once the Commission has adopted final rules in this proceeding, the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will release a public notice 
explaining how these amendments will affect LMDS applicants.
    Except for the filing dates and auction schedule, information 
provided in previous public notices and the LMDS Bidder Information 
Package remains unchanged. The new schedule is as follows:

FCC Form 175 filing: 5:30 p.m., ET Tuesday, January 20, 1998
Upfront Payments: 6 p.m. ET, Monday, February 2, 1998
Mock Auction: 9 a.m. ET-3 p.m. ET, Friday, February 13, 1998
Auction Begins: 9 a.m. ET Wednesday, February 18, 1998

    For further information, please contact Louis Sigalos of the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Auctions and Industry Analysis 
Division, at (202) 418-0660.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32011 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
**Exhibit32.2**

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

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Countrywide Financial Corporation (the “Company”)for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric P. Sieracki, ChiefFinancial 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ ERIC P. SIERACKI    |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Eric P. Sieracki        |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| August 7, 2006          |   |   |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toCountrywide Financial Corporation and will be retained by Countrywide FinancialCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
smsi-ex102_7.htm



Exhibit 10.2

AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE 

(WILLIAM W. SMITH, JR. AND DIEVA L. SMITH, JT/WROS)

 

This AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made as of January 30, 2018, by and between Smith Micro Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and WILLIAM W. SMITH, JR. AND DIEVA L. SMITH, JT/WROS (“Holder”), and amends that certain Secured Promissory Note, dated June 26, 2017, issued by the Company to Holder in the principal amount of $1,000,000 (the “Note”).  Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to such terms in the Note. 

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Maturity Date of the Note as set forth herein. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

Section 1.  Amendment to Note.  Effective as of the date hereof, the Maturity Date of the Note is hereby extended to July 25, 2018. 

 

Section 2.  Effect of Amendment.  Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, no other changes or modifications to the Note are intended or implied by this Amendment.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Note, the terms of this Amendment shall control.  

 

Section 3.  Miscellaneous.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the parties to this Amendment may execute this Amendment by signing any such counterpart.  Facsimile and electronically copied signatures on this Amendment shall be deemed the equivalent of original signatures.  This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.  

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 



Exhibit 10.2

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY: 

SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC.

 

By: /s/ Timothy C. Huffmyer

Name: Timothy C. Huffmyer

Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

HOLDER:

 

 

/s/ William W. Smith, Jr.

William W. Smith, Jr.

 

 

/s/ Dieva L. Smith

Dieva L. Smith
#### LINDSLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. The DELTONA CORPORATION, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 42936.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1972.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN. JJ., concur.
Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Department of the Environment 

for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Amendments 

to Regulation .07 Paper, Fabric, Film and Foil Coating and New Regulation .07-2 Plastic 

Parts and Business Machines Coating under 

COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 

held on February 15, 2011 Baltimore, MD 

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with 

the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, 

Department of the Environment. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also 

being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State 

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

Notice of this hearing appeared in the: 

Maryland Register on January 14, 2011; 

MDE's website from January 11, 2011 through February 16, 2011; 

Baltimore Sun on January 14, 2011; 

Washington Post on January 13, 2011; and the 

St. Mary’s Enterprise on January 14, 2011. 

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record. 

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to 

the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were 

also made available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air 

quality control offices. 

 The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on the 

proposed amendments to Regulation .07 and new Regulation .07-2 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary 

 COMAR 26.11.19.07-2 is proposed to set VOC coating standards for a variety of plastic 

parts coating and business machine coating applications and includes plastic parts and vinyl 

coating standards and printing standards from the existing COMAR 26.11.19.07. Regulation .07-

2 also requires the use of higher efficiency coating methods. 

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

These amendments will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP. 

1 
Consideration of Comments 

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt these 

amendments and new regulation. 

2
#### Nelson Robert FOOTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-613.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1970.

Norman D. Zimmerman, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Roger W. Foote, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have thoroughly reviewed the point presented for our review by the appellant’s brief and the pertinent portions of the record. On the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no error has been demonstrated by the appellant. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., and COOPER, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
#### EDWARD L. NEZELEK, INC., and the Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. CONCREFORM COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, and Highland Beach Ambassadors, a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees. The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellants, v. CONCREFORM COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, and Highland Beach Ambassadors, a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 76-528, 76-552.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1977.

On Rehearing May 6, 1977.

John M. Downing, Jr., of Kelley, Tompkins, Frazier & Kelley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Merle Litman of Litman, Muchnick & Wasserman, Hollywood, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is a mechanic’s lien case wherein the Appellee was granted a Final Judgment against the Appellant the effect of which foreclosed a lien which had been transferred pursuant to Section 713.24, Florida Statutes (1975). The Appellant was the surety insuror on the bond at the time the lien was alleged to have matured. At all material times herein there was in existence a payment bond exempting the owner and his surety, the Appellant, pursuant to Section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1975). The Appellee was aware of this payment bond but chose not to go against it as required by the Statute and therefore he should be barred from recovery under the transfer bond posted pursuant to Section 713.24, Florida Statutes (1975). Although the result may seem harsh, we hold under the applicable law and the facts of this case that Appellant has no cause of action against the Section 713.24, Florida Statutes (1975), transfer bond. See *Resnick et al. v. Clerici,*Fla.App., 340 So.2d 1194, opinion issued. December 10, 1976.

This cause is REVERSED WITH DIRECTION to enter judgment for the Appellant.

ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Upon rehearing our prior opinion in case 76-528 is withdrawn as it applies to Edward L, Nezelek, Inc., the contractor, and the Judgment below as pertains to that appellant is affirmed.

ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
#### Harry ZUKERNICK, Appellant, v. Abraham M. DRUCKMAN, Appellee.

No. 69-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 19, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.