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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 May 2, 2017

a0424

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2017

154277

KAY FRAZIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154277

COA: 325241 

Ingham CC: 11-000672-NH

GREGORY M. UITVLUGT, M.D., and EAST

LANSING ORTHOPEDICS ASSOCIATION, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2016 

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.
# L_2006318EN.01004801.xml

| 17.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 318/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 318/48

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 52/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2006

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 16 of 20 January 2006
  )

On page 197, in the second column in the table in point 3.1. of Annex III:

for:

‘Subdivisions 25 to 26, 28 south of 58°50′N’,

read:

‘Subdivisions 25 to 26, 28 south of 56°50′N’.

---
|   | (1)                  |   | The                Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,                2006 (the “Form 10-QSB”) fully                complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities                Exchange                Act of 1934, as amended; and   |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2)                  |   | The                information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and                results of operations of the Company.   |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                                    |                                                                                                                        |                                    |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                    | **VALLEY                FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**(Registrant)                                                    |
|                               |                                                                                                                   |                               |
| Date: August              14, 2006 | By:                                                                                                               | /s/ Louis              J. Brothers |
|                                    | Louis              J. Brothers                                                                                              |
|                                    | President,                Secretary and Treasurer(Principle Executive Officer)(Principal                Accounting Officer) |
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (2.2 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Award, DLA

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
* 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. 99-10119

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LATONYA RENA MILES, also know as So Fine,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-256-G

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

December 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

LaTonya Rena Miles pleaded guilty to count 1 of a five-count

indictment charging her with conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute over one kilogram of cocaine base and has appealed his

sentence. Miles contends that the district court erred in

determining the quantity of drugs attributable to her.

We review the sentencing court’s calculation of the quantity

of drugs involved for clear error. United States v. Mergerson, 4

F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993). A factual finding is not clearly 
No. 99-10119 

-2-

erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record read as a

whole. United States v. Watson, 966 F.2d 161, 162 (5th Cir.

1992).

Miles argues that the record does not support the

attribution of two kilograms of cocaine base to her from an

uncompleted transaction. Instead she argues that she should only

be held responsible for 1.19 kilograms of cocaine base. The

record reflects that Miles negotiated, intended to, and was

capable of supplying this quantity of cocaine base. The

uncontroverted facts in the Presentence Investigation Report

(PSR) and the testimony of Special Agent Brady of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation support this finding. Miles has not

produced any evidence to refute the report or Brady’s testimony. 

Because Miles did not present any rebuttal evidence, the district

court was free to adopt those facts without further inquiry. See

United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990). Miles

has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in the

amount of drugs attributed to her. 

AFFIRMED.
# L_2006335EN.01005001.xml

| 1.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 335/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/50

---

COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2006/868/CFSP

of 30 November 2006

amending Joint Action 2004/847/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Kinshasa (DRC) regarding the Integrated Police Unit (EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular Article 14 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 9 December 2004, the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/847/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Kinshasa (DRC) regarding the Integrated Police Unit (EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’) (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 9 December 2004, the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/847/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Kinshasa (DRC) regarding the Integrated Police Unit (EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’) (1).

| (2) | In Joint Action 2006/300/CFSP it was notably provided that EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’ would be temporarily reinforced during the electoral process in the DRC. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In Joint Action 2006/300/CFSP it was notably provided that EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’ would be temporarily reinforced during the electoral process in the DRC.

| (3) | The temporary reinforcement of EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’ should be extended until 31 December 2006, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The temporary reinforcement of EUPOL ‘Kinshasa’ should be extended until 31 December 2006,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

Article 1(3) of Joint Action 2004/847/CFSP shall be replaced by the following:

‘3.   EUPOL “Kinshasa” shall be temporarily reinforced during the electoral process in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 3. This reinforcement shall end on 31 December 2006.’

Article 2

This Joint Action shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Article 3

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2006.

For the Council

The President

L. HYSSÄLÄ

---

(1)  
  OJ L 367, 14.12.2004, p. 30. Joint Action as last amended by Joint Action 2006/300/CFSP (OJ L 111, 25.4.2006, p. 12).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 AND JUNE 29, 1997 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                              71
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (991)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,211
<PP&E>                                          12,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,618)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,736
<BONDS>                                        137,240
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           121
<OTHER-SE>                                     192,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,314
<SALES>                                        207,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,366
<CGS>                                          153,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,837
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,288
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12

                          MINN DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF NET PROCEEDS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Year Ended August 31,
                                                                 ---------------------

                                                      2000      1999      1998      1997      1996
<S>                                                   <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Earnings:
Net proceeds before income taxes from continuing
operations                                            86,604    63,352    72,084    74,239    56,872
Fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest, see
below                                                  5,199     5,264     5,372     4,316     2,898
Amortization of capitalized interest                      94        94        92        55        18
                                                      ------    ------    ------    ------    ------

     Net Proceeds                                     91,897    68,710    77,548    78,610    59,788
                                                      ======    ======    ======    ======    ======


Fixed Charges:
Interest Expense                                       5,199     5,264     5,372     4,316     2,898
Interest factor included in rentals (1)                    0         0         0         0         0
                                                      ------    ------    ------    ------    ------

Fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest          5,199     5,264     5,372     4,316     2,898
     Interest capitalized                                  0         0       199       954       669
                                                      ------    ------    ------    ------    ------
Fixed Charges                                          5,199     5,264     5,571     5,270     3,567
                                                      ======    ======    ======    ======    ======

Ratio of net proceeds to fixed charges                 17.68     13.05     13.92     14.92     16.76
                                                      ======    ======    ======    ======    ======
</TABLE>

(1)      The company does lease certain items, such as office equipment. Due to
         the proportionately small amounts involved, interest on such lease
         payments has not been included in the total of the company's fixed
         charges of the calculation of this ratio.


                                                                              44
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER STERN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA;

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT

AMERICA, INC.; SONY ONLINE

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-55348

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07710-PA-FFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2011** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

FILED

NOV 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Plaintiff-Appellant Alexander Stern appeals the district court’s grant of

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Under Title III of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA), “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the

basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation

by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public

accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). In interpreting the term “place of public

accommodation” in the context of the long list of “public accommodations”

contained in § 12181(7)–all of which “are actual, physical places where goods or

services are open to the public”–this Court has found that Title III requires “some

connection between the good or service complained of and an actual physical

place.” Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir.

2000). This view is supported by 28 C.F.R. § 36.104, which specifies that a place

of public accommodation is “a facility operated by a private entity,” and defines

“facility” to mean “all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes,

equipment, rolling stock or other conveyances, roads, walks, passageways, parking

lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building,

property, structure, or equipment is located.”
3

A video game is not a facility, and Stern has failed to allege a sufficient

connection between Sony’s video games and a facility owned, leased, or operated

by Sony. Stern has failed to show that Sony’s brick-and-mortar retail stores are

sufficiently analogous to the movie theater at issue in Arizona v. Harkins

Amusement Enters., Inc., 603 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010). Stern alleges that his

visual impairments and the inaccessibility of Sony’s video games prevent him from

fully and equally enjoying the games, which in turn hinders his ability to fully and

equally enjoy the privileges and advantages of attending marketing events

associated with the games that are hosted by Sony. This connection is too tenuous

to support a cause of action under the ADA.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Caswell Dunn, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered August 31, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. This motion was made by defense counsel, after the sentence had already been imposed, on the ground that the court had promised to impose a sentence of, at most, 9 to 21 years imprisonment.

There is no indication in the record on appeal that the court in fact made such a promise before the defendant’s plea was taken. The defendant may not properly seek vacatur of his plea based upon alleged "off-the-record” statements, either on the theory that the court violated such an "off-the-record” promise, or on the theory that defense counsel provided him with incorrect information as to the sentence commitment actually made by the court *(see, People v Ramos,*63 NY2d 640, *revg*99 AD2d 724; *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520, 525; *People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, 244, *cert denied*419 US 1122; *People v Rodriguez,*150 AD2d 812, 813; *People v Serrano,*149 AD2d 445; *People v La Placa,*127 AD2d 610).

We find that the sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Corey W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Final order, Family Court, *226New York County (Jeffry H. Gallet, F.C.J.), entered on or about April 2, 1990, which, upon appellant’s guilty plea, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him with a Division for Youth, Title III facility for eleven months for acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, the adjudication set aside and the petition dismissed, without costs and disbursements.

As properly conceded by the presentment agency, dismissal of the delinquency petition is required where, as here, the supporting depositions were jurisdictionally defective in that they failed to indicate whether the factual allegations asserted were based upon the deponents’ personal knowledge or upon information and belief *(see, Matter of David T.,*75 NY2d 927). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00533

- CV

In the Interest of O.B. and N.R.L.B.

, Children

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PA

- 1244

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

SIGNED September 11, 2013.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICECHAIR OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD 

OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

No. 316

DISCIPLINARY BOARD APPOINTMENT 

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2022, Jerry M. Lehocky, Esquire, is 

designated as Chair, and John C. Rafferty, Jr., Esquire, as Vice-Chair, of the Disciplinary 

Board of Pennsylvania, commencing April 1, 2022.