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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

April 10, 2015

p0407 

# Order

Clerk April 10, 2015

151274 & (18)

SHEAN SATGUNAM, M.D.,

Pla intiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 151274

COA: 323798

Ingham CC: 12

- 001194

- NM

HACKNEY, GROVER, HOOVER & BEAN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

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

The application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is

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

sho uld be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herve Riviere, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered November 30, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested in a so-called "buy and bust” operation after he had allegedly sold two vials of cocaine to an undercover police officer. When he was arrested, the defendant was found with $10 of prerecorded money, as well as an additional $55 in United States currency on his person.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was entitled to an adverse inference charge for the People’s destruction of the two vials as well as the envelopes in which they were placed. The determination of what is an appropriate sanction for the destruction of discoverable evidence is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion, and while the degree of prosecutorial fault may be considered, the courts’ attention should focus primarily on the overriding need to eliminate prejudice to the defendant *(see, People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937; *People v Kelly,*62 NY2d 516; *People v Saddy,*84 AD2d 175). We conclude that there was no prejudice to the defendant, and thus, the court properly exercised its discretion in not imposing a sanction. The record clearly establishes that the destruction was inadvertent and the prosecutor did not act in bad faith. Additionally, the defendant never requested the vials until the day of trial nor challenged that they did in fact *872contain cocaine. Thus, his belated claim of prejudice is unpersuasive *(see, People v Allgood,*70 NY2d 812; *People v Deresky,*134 AD2d 512; *People v Henderson,*123 AD2d 883). Moreover, defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine the People’s witness, including the laboratory technician who tested the contents of the vials, to challenge their contents as well as chain of custody.

We also reject the defendant’s claimed *Rosario*violations. The material which was not turned over did not relate to the subject matter of any witness’s testimony *(see,*CPL 240.45 [1] [a]), and the late disclosure of other material did not cause the defendant substantial prejudice *(see, People v Jones,*70 NY2d 547; *People v Ranghelle,*69 NY2d 56; *see also, People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, *supra).*

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 Feb. 4, 2021Desert Storm veteran influences daughter’s call to service
        The 30th anniversary of Desert Storm was Jan. 17, 2021, and I have come to the quick realization that my biggest motivation for joining the military in the first place was my father, former Staff Sgt. Larry Shanes of the U.S. Marines.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Corporate Headquarters

6012 Campus Circle Drive, W. STE 240 

Irving, TX 75063 - USA

Phone: (937) 366-5201 

Fax: (972) 518-1700 

 

Operations & Maintenance Base 

145 Hunter Drive 

Wilmington, OH 45177 - USA

Phone: (937) 382-5591 

Fax: (937) 366-5022 

 

August 16, 2016 

VIA Electronic – On-line FAA.gov 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE West Building – Ground Floor Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Petition for Exemption – No. 10669A – Operations Without Airworthiness Certificate On-board 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

Pursuant to the guidance contained within the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), 

Volume 3 (Chapter 2)(Section 1) – Exemptions, Deviations, Waivers and Authorizations and Part 11 

(Subpart A)(Section 11.81) of the General Rulemaking Procedures, the purpose of this letter is to request 

deviation from 14 CFR 91.203(a)(b) – Civil Aircraft: Certifications Required. 

Specifically, Air Transport International, Inc. (ATI) is petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

to use Exemption No. 10669A. This exemption allows deviation from 14 CFR 91.203(a)(b) which will allow 

Air Transport International, Inc. to temporarily operate U. S. registered aircraft within the lower 48 

contiguous states and the District of Columbia without the airworthiness certificate and/or certificate of 

aircraft registration onboard the aircraft. 

Air Transport International, Inc. is requesting relief for a period of three working days, not including 

weekends or Federal Holidays, in which to apply and receive a replacement document. 

The foundation of our request is to prevent unnecessary flight delays or cancellations to our main customer 

base – DHL, Amazon and AMC – in the event an aircraft registration or airworthiness certificate is lost, 

stolen or mutilated. This would directly benefit the public by keeping the package delivery service running 

on time within the DHL/Amazon network and also, providing on time travel for the cargo and passengers 

scheduled within the Air Mobility Command. These services are used by the public, law enforcement and 

governmental agencies that relay heavily on the on time movement of passengers, documents or packages. 

Granting this exemption to ATI would not affect the public safety as these signed documents are the final 

step from the FAA stating ATI has previously complied with the necessary processes and procedures to 

obtain an Airworthiness Certificate and/or Certificate of Aircraft Registration. 

 

If you have any questions regarding this topic, please contact me immediately at (513) 320-1230. 

Respectfully, 

Kenneth D. Young 

Director Safety, Security and Regulatory Compliance 

Air Transport International, Inc. 

145 Hunter Drive 

Wilmington, OH 45177-9550
Exhibit
23




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 333-103209 and Form S-8 No. 333-127595)of AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
and in the related Prospectuses, of our reports dated February 11, 2009, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of AirTran Holdings, Inc. and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of AirTran
Holdings, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2008.




/s/
Ernst & Young LLP




Orlando,
Florida


February
      11, 2009
| (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      Partnership. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November      15, 2010 |                                                                                                                                                                      |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | /s/      Michael J. Mauceli                                                                                                                                               |
|                                    | Michael      J. Mauceli                                                                                                                                                   |
|                                    | Manager      and Member of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,GP,      LLC, the manager of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,L.P.,      the Managing General Partner of thePartnership |
|                                    | (Principal      Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                        |

----
Opinion issued February 4, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00056-CV

———————————

IN RE JAGAN MAHADEVAN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Jagan Mahadevan, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

challenging the trial court’s order compelling discovery in the underlying case.1In 

conjunction with the petition, relator filed a motion requesting a stay of the order 

1 The underlying case is Prem Bikkina v. Jagannathan Mahadevan a/k/a/ Jagan 

Mahadevan, cause number 20-DCV-272767, pending in the 240th District Court of 

Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Frank J. Fraley presiding.
2

pending our ruling on the mandamus petition. We deny the petition and dismiss the 

stay motion as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris.
| (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 the Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |                                    |   |
|----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: April 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Kevin P. Quirk                 |   |
|                 |   | Kevin P. Quirk, Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                 |   |                                    |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2005 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2005

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic synthetic staple 
                                 fiber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic synthetic staple 
                                 fiber.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC SYNTHETIC STAPLE DYED FIBER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Acrylic staple      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          fiber dyed                                                         31/2011.......
                          (polyacrylonitril
                          e staple), not
                          carded, combed,
                          or otherwise
                          processed for
                          spinning,
                          containing by
                          weight a minimum
                          of 92 percent
                          polyacrylonitrile
                          , not more than
                          .01 percent zinc
                          and from 2 to 8
                          percent water,
                          imported in the
                          form of staple
                          fiber with a
                          filament decitex
                          of 4.0 decitex to
                          6.7 decitex (plus
                          or minus 10
                          percent) with a
                          fiber shrinkage
                          of 0 to 22
                          percent (plus or
                          minus 10 percent)
                          and a cut fiber
                          length of 100 mm
                          to 135 mm with a
                          target length of
                          120 mm (provided
                          for in subheading
                          5503.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007009EN.01000601.xml

| 13.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4297 — Nokia/Siemens)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 9/06)

On 13 November 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4297. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4297. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, John Bennett, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this report of Probe Manufacturing, Inc.;  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(s)  and  I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(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(s) 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.    DATED  this  14th day  of  May 2008.  /s/ John Bennett ______________________________ John Bennett Chief Financial Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1850 

To modify and extend the suspension of duty on pinoxaden. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To modify and extend the suspension of duty on pinoxaden. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PINOXADEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.60 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 pinoxaden) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘1.8%’’ and inserting ‘‘0.5%’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

10 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1850 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maria Cotto, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on July 19, 1988, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply *254for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.