alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2016

v No. 324674 Wayne Circuit Court HERMAN RAMIK KERSEY, LC No. 14-004826-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and J ANSEN and S TEPHENS , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, P.J. ( concurring ).

I concur in most of the majority’s opinion. I write separatel y to indicate that I find that the prosecutor’s repeated statements about defendant being a co nvicted felon, outside the context of the felony firearm char ge, to be improper.

The record is clear that the pro secutor essentially argued the issue of defendant’s conviction while discussing defe ndant’s credibility, in direct response to defense counsel arguing that the victim was not believable. Defense counsel objected a nd the trial court instructed the jury that the prosecutor’s comments were limited to the felon i n possession of a firearm charge and that the prior felony was not for the purpose of whether or not defendant was believable. The prosecutor again stated that defendant was a convicted felo n. Defense counsel again objected and the trial court stated “let’s move on”. “’Issues of prosecutorial misconduct are decided case by case, with the reviewing court examining the pe rtinent portion of the record and evaluating the prosecutor's remarks in context.’” People v Gonzalez , 256 Mich App 212, 222- 223; 663 NW2d 499 (2003), quoting People v Noble , 238 Mich App 647, 660; 608 NW2d 123 (1999). I find this to be misconduct, however because a jury i s presumed to have followed the court’s instruction, People v Graves , 458 Mich 476, 486; 581 NW2d 229 (1998), defendant was not deprived of a fair trial.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-46656) pertaining to the 1984 Stock OptionPlan of Vicor Corporation,  (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-65154) pertaining to the 1993 Stock OptionPlan of Vicor Corporation,  (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-61177) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Optionand Incentive Plan of Vicor Corporation,  (4) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-44790) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Optionand Incentive Plan of Vicor Corporation, and  (5) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-99423) pertaining to the Amended andRestated 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of Vicor Corporation;of our report dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Vicor Corporation and our report dated March 14, 2008, with respect to theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Vicor Corporation included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) of Vicor Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPBoston, Massachusetts
260 La. 700

#### Ralph ROBINSON, d/b/a Danville Grocery & Grill v. Gladys JACKSON and Barbar Ann Jackson.

No. 52075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Barbara Ann Jackson applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bienville. 255 So.2d 846.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: August 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Gerald Y. NgGerald Y. NgChief Financial Officer
[No. 321-3.

Division Three.

November 10, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Wayne Charles Stevens, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 16077, Lloyd L. Wiehl, J., entered December 8, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.0

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following list contains the names and jurisdictions of organization of
Habersham Bancorp's direct and indirect subsidiaries. Habersham Bancorp owns
100% of the outstanding stock of each listed entity, except for BancMortgage
Financial Corp. and Advantage Insurers, Inc., which are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Habersham Bank.

Name and Jurisdiction

Habersham Bank, a Georgia state bank.
The Advantage Group, Inc. a Georgia corporation.
BancMortgage Financial Corp., a Georgia corporation.
Advantage Insurers, Inc., a Georgia corporation.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 37953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport, Maxton, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission to waive the requirement that 
approximately 10 acres of airport property, located at the Laurinburg-
Maxton Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia 
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to JoAnn Gentry, Executive Director, Laurinburg-
Maxton Airport Commission at the following address: Laurinburg-Maxton 
Airport Commission, 16701 Airport Road, Maxton, NC 28364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta 
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-
260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7142. The application may be 
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the 
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission to release approximately 10 acres 
of airport property at the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport. The property 
consists of one parcel located at the northeast intersection of S.R. 
1434 (Airport Road) and S.R. 1472 (Jump Road). This property is 
currently shown on the approved Airport Layout Plan as non-aeronautical 
use land and the proposed use of this property is compatible with 
airport operations. The City will sell the property for industrial use 
with proceeds of the sale providing funding for future airport 
development.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any 
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the Laurinburg-Maxton 
Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 12, 2012.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-15278 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
# C_2022119EN.01004601.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/46

---

Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot)

(Case T-205/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Liftbot - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 119/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kewazo GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 (Case R 1160/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Liftbot as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Kewazo GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Kewazo GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
#### The STATE of Florida, ex rel. Richard C. DAVIS, Relator, v. Ben F. OVERTON, as Circuit Judge in and for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 14, 1969.

Prohibition denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS, INC.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-24142, No. 33-33948, No. 33-53950, No. 33-59940 and No. 333-47365) on Form
S-8 of Analytical Surveys, Inc. of our report dated October 30, 1998, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended September 30, 1998, which report appears in the
September 30, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys, Inc.



                                       KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Denver, Colorado
December 21, 1998
#### M. C. SANDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from an order denying his Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. motion to vacate and set aside without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant alleged in his motion that he was without effective counsel, that his plea of guilty was coerced and involuntary, and that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights to a jury trial.

The record shows that appellant was represented by counsel and it further shows in a supplemental record that the trial judge questioned the appellant in great detail before he would accept his plea of guilty. From the record it therefore appears that appellant was represented by counsel and from the questions asked by the trial judge he knowingly and intelligently plead guilty.

The denial of appellant’s Rule 1.850 motion is therefore affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  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 Quarterly Report of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended July 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G.
Chleboski, 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 to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard G. Chleboski
-----------------------------------
Richard G. Chleboski
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2005

                                       45
02-13-00191-CV

December 29, 2014

Page 2

December 29, 2014

RE:Court of Appeals Number:02-13-00191-CV

Trial Court Case Number:096-257264-11

Style:Kent Davis and D. Kent Davis, P.C.

v.

Ledford White and M & M Joint Venture

Dear Counsel:

Please find enclosed a copy of this court’s opinion and the appellate record in the above cause.  I call to your attention pages 29-31 of the opinion which states that the court is referring the matter to the Texas State Bar’s Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office.

Respectfully yours,

Debra Spisak, Clerk of the Court
H. Res. 574

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 7, 1994.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (S. 1569) to amend the Public Health Service Act to

establish, reauthorize and revise provisions to improve the

health of individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, and

for other purposes. All points of order against the conference

report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### JOSEPH McCLAY *vs.*JANE HOUSTON’S adm’r.

If an attachment clause be added to a fi. fa. on justice’s judgment, the gamisheesmust be summoned to appear at the return of the execution.

Certiorari to justice McCauliey.

The only exception relied on in this case was to the execution which was made returnable on the 31st of March, 1835, and contained a clause for summoning the garnishees of the defendant to appear before the justice and answer on the 81st of February.

*530
      *Gilpin,*for McClay.

*Hamilton,*for Houston’s adm’r.

The act of assembly (sec. 30) makes the time for the appearance of the garnishees the same with the return day of the execution.

Execution set aside.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                         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, and in connection with the quarterly report on
Form 10-QSB of Volunteer  Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Greg Oliver,  Vice President and
Cashier  (Principal  Financial and  Accounting  Officer) of the Company,  hereby
certify  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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

     This Certification is signed on November 14, 2003.


                                       /s/ Greg Oliver
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Greg Oliver
                                       Vice President and Cashier
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated January 26, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2054 contained in Amendment
No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-249498) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 26, 2021
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 14, 2015

No. 04-14-00668-CV

WEST 17TH RESOURCES, LLC, Pamela Mika Wolf, and Thomas Mika,

Appellants

v.

Lucian A. PAWELEK and Carleen J. Pawelek,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-04-00087-CVK

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellee’s brief is due on May 8, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1026 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1026

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain 
  deductions of members of the National Guard or reserve units of the 
   Armed Forces will be allowable in computing adjusted gross income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 26 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

  Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
   Coats, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. 
Specter, and Mr. Stevens) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain 
  deductions of members of the National Guard or reserve units of the 
   Armed Forces will be allowable in computing adjusted gross income.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) paragraph (2) 
of section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
certain trade and business deductions of employees) is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Certain expenses of reservists and national 
                guard members.--The deductions allowed by part VI 
                (section 161 and following) which consist of any of the 
                following expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in 
                connection with the performance by such taxpayer of 
                service as a member of a reserve unit of the Armed 
                Forces of the United States or of a unit of the 
                National Guard:
                            ``(i) Expenses of travel, meals, and 
                        lodging while away from home.
                            ``(ii) Expenses of transportation to and 
                        from home.
                            ``(iii) Expenses of uniforms.''
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable 
years beginning after December 31, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
#### J. W. BOLLAND, Appellant, v. James Thomas YATES a/k/a J. T. Yates; T. David Burns; A. E. Jones and Louise M. Jones, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 10, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022284EN.01003501.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/35

---

Order of the General Court of 30 May 2022 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (MATE MATE)

(Case T-452/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 May 2021 (Case R 406/2021-1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 368, 13.9.2021.

---
256 La. 619

#### AUDUBON INSURANCE COMPANY v. George W. FALGOUT and Venson Seal, Individually and as natural tutor of the minor, Harold Seal.

No. 50700.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1970.

In re: Audubon Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany. 234 So.2d 842.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment.
#### Betty WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-434.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 17, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Paul Morris, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William M. Grodnick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAYERFIELD, C. J., and KE-HOE, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *State*v. *Hetzko,*283 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); *State v. Bell,*249 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Webster v. State,*201 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); *Rodriguez v. State,*189 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and *Hedges v. State,*165 So.2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
#### Fred W. WARDDELL, Petitioner, v. TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 43948.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 29, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.