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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144186 

ALEX A. LEMERAND, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 144186 

 COA: 298637 

Court of Claims 

LC No. 09-000067-MZ 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________________________ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of McCahan v Brennan (Docket No. 142765), is pending on appeal before this Court 

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:





(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2014 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: June 20, 2014/s/Larry VanceLarry VanceChief Executive Officer





This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 39 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 39

   Electing Representative Sabo of Minnesota to the Committee on the 
                                Budget.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1993

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Electing Representative Sabo of Minnesota to the Committee on the 
                                Budget.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be and is hereby elected 
as chairman of the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on the Budget: Martin Olav Sabo, Chairman.

                                 <all>
```
[LOGO] NEFF & RICCI
       ----------------
                    LLP




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


Board of Directors
GFSB Bancorp, Inc.

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos.  333-07131 and 333-51498) on Form S-8 of GFSB Bancorp,  Inc. of our report
dated  July 26,  2001, relating  to the  consolidated  statements  of  financial
condition of GFSB  Bancorp,  Inc. as of June 30, 2001 and 2000,  and the related
consolidated  statements  of earnings  and  comprehensive  earnings,  changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ending June 30, 2001 and 2000,
which report  appears in the June 30, 2001 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of GFSB
Bancorp, Inc.



/s/Neff & Ricci LLP

September 27, 2001
Albuquerque, New Mexico

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                          <C>
McGLADREY NETWORK                                        CONSULTANTS & CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
-----------------                                6100 Uptown Blvd. NE - Suite 400 - Albuquerque, NM 87110
An Independently Owned Member                 (505) 830-6200 - Fax (505) 830-6282 - e-mail: info@neffcpa.com
Worldwide Services Through RSM International
</TABLE>
# C_2021252EN.01001401.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 21 April 2021 — SIA Piltenes meži v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-251/21)

(2021/C 252/19)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant in cassation: SIA Piltenes meži

Other party: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Do payments for micro-reserves created in a forest area in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (1) fall within the scope of Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do payments for micro-reserves created in a forest area in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (1) fall within the scope of Article 30(6) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005? (2)

| 2. | Is the award of compensation for micro-reserves created in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds subject to the restrictions which Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (3) lays down in respect of payments for undertakings in difficulty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the award of compensation for micro-reserves created in pursuance of the objectives of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds subject to the restrictions which Commission Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (3) lays down in respect of payments for undertakings in difficulty?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 487.

(3)  OJ 2014 L 193, p. 1.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Hillary POPE.

No. 52914.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 13, 1973.

*273Leslie D. Ligón, Jr., Clinton, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Counsel to Atty. Gen., New Orleans, Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., W. Lee Overton, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Hillary Pope, was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of attempted simple escape from the Louisiana State Penitentiary and sentenced to serve five years. R.S. 14:110.2. On this appeal, he relies on one bill of exceptions to obtain a reversal of his conviction and sentence.

Defense counsel has failed to attach any evidence to his single bill taken to the trial court’s denial of his Motion for a Directed Verdict, as authorized by La.C.Cr.P. Art. 778. Acknowledging this Court’s holding in State v. Hudson, 253 La. 992, 221 So.2d 484 (1969) wherein Article 778 of the La. C.Cr.P. was declared unconstitutional in jury trials, defense counsel argues in his brief that that holding was limited to capital cases only. This is not so.

We at no time distinguished the nature of the case in which this holding applies. See, e. g.: State v. O’Brien, 255 La. 704, 232 So.2d 484 (1970) (unlawful possession of narcotics); State v. Douglas, 256 La. 186, 235 So.2d 563 (1970) (armed robbery); State v. Braxton, 257 La. 183, 241 So.2d 763 (1970) (armed robbery); State v. Square, 257 La. 743, 244 So.2d 200 (1971) (murder); State v. Holmes, 258 La. 221, 245 So.2d 707 (1971) (murder); State v. Williams, 258 La. 801, 248 So.2d 295 (1971) (manslaughter); State v. Arnold, 259 La. 139, 249 So.2d 552 (1971) (manslaughter); State v. Graves, 259 La. 526, 250 So.2d 727 (1971) (murder); State v. Dimopoullas, 260 La. 874, 257 So.2d 644 (1972) (lewd and lascivious act); State v. Burch, 261 La. 3, 258 So.2d 851 (1972) (possession of narcotics); State v. Hall, 261 La. 777, 260 So.2d 913 (1972) (armed robbery); State v. Higginbotham, 261 La. 983, 261 So.2d 638 (1972) (simple burglary).

The trial judge properly denied the motion. This bill is without merit.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 230 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 230

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 29, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1964) to authorize appropriations for the Maritime Administration for 
fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the 
bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI 
are waived. It shall be in order at any time to consider the amendments en bloc 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries or a 
designee. The amendments en bloc shall be considered as read and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. Points of order against the amendments en bloc for 
failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### E. G. MUSLEH and Bill Tankersley, Appellants, v. M. L. COPELAND et al., Appellees.

No. J-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 10, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
#### SULLIVAN *v.*SUPERINTENDENT OF MARYLAND STATE REFORMATORY FOR MALES

[App. No. 58,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided April 24, 1962.*

Before Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Cullen, the application for leave to appeal will be denied.

*Application denied.*
#### Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. BECK, For themselves and For the Use and Benefit of Kristel Fay Beck, their minor daughter v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 62761.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Mr. and Mrs. Louis R. Beck etc., et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 359 So.2d 1327.

Denied. The result is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  861,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,539
<INVENTORY>                                     56,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,064,402
<PP&E>                                       9,516,336
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,460,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,955,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,330,309
<BONDS>                                      1,683,831
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,941
<PREFERRED>                                     15,208
<COMMON>                                       978,351
<OTHER-SE>                                     322,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,955,886
<SALES>                                      2,307,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,307,002
<CGS>                                          695,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,366,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              93,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                844,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                   314,236
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            530,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   530,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Eugene COOPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-667.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender and Rory Stein, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Eugene Cooper was convicted of manslaughter, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense and carrying a concealed firearm.

Defendant appeals that part of the sentencing order which required that defendant not be eligible for parole for the mandatory minimum of three years. We agree and strike and delete that portion of the sentence since manslaughter is not one of the crimes set forth in Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1977), prescribing a mandatory minimum sentence upon conviction for certain offenses when a firearm is used.

As to the defendant’s other points on appeal, namely, first that the trial court erred in declaring a state’s witness to be adverse, and second, that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the co-prosecutor to testify for purposes of impeaching a state’s witness in violation of the witness sequestration rule, we affirm the decision of the trial court on the authority of *Bryan v. State,*45 Fla. 8, 34 So. 243 (1903); *Romano v. Palazzo,*83 Fla. 243, 91 So. 115 (1922); *Jones v. State,*273 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
No. 10726.

#### Fries *v.*The Buckeye Malleable Iron & Coupler Co.

Decided February 23, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. J. B. Kahle,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Pomerene & Pomerenc*and *Messrs. Seaton & Paine,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck, and Price, JJ. concur.
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 24, 2014

p0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148313

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148313

COA: 315587

Clinton CC: 11

- 008760

- FH

GREGGORY LEE HENDY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, it appearing that the defendant’s former appellate counsel is

unavailable to explain the reason for his failure to file on the defendant’s behalf in the

trial court a timely post

- judgment motion or to file a timely direct appeal in t he Court of

Appeals, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2013 order of the Court of

Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to

appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration o f the

defendant’s delayed application for leave to appeal under the standard for direct appeals.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 33-33013, No. 33-33063, No. 33-65157, No. 33-68860 and No. 333-49837 on
Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-45815 on Form S-3 of Network
Equipment Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated April 18, 2000, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. for the
year ended March 31, 2000.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
June 26, 2000


                                    Page 67
#### CHRIS. SCHROEGER & SON COMPANY, etc., v. CENTRAL SHOREWOOD BUILDING CORPORATION.

No. 6051.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 23, 1936.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and file a stipulation, which reads as follows: “It is hereby stipulated by and between the appellants and appellee by their respective attorneys that the appeal in the above entitled action be dismissed without costs.” On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal in the above-entitled action be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without costs.
#### George DMITRIEFF, Appellant, v. Vlastimil MORTON, Appellee.

No. 73-1404.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Betty S. PAGE, Appellant, v. Alfonzo C. MOZZELL, and Community Service Broadcasters, Incorporated d/b/a WMBM Radio Station, Appellees.

No. 72-541.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[No. 725-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

November 22, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Mitchell Lee Williams, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 53660, Frank H. Roberts, Jr., J., entered July 30, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                  ------------
         Section 1350 Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer
            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, the undersigned officers of 1st Independence
Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the  "Report") of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: August 14, 2008          /s/ N. William White
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     N. William White
                                Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)


                                /s/ R. Michael Wilbourn
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     R. Michael Wilbourn
                                Title:    Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)