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

s0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148689

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148689

COA: 310704

Wayne CC: 11-007861-FC

JOHN EDWARD JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2013 

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.
| Subsidiary                            | State of Incorporation | Geos Ownership Percentage as of April 7, 2011 |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                   |                                          |
| Geos Communications (DE), Inc.        | Delaware               | 100%                                          |
|                                  |                   |                                          |
| Geos Communications IP Holdings, Inc. | Delaware               | 100%                                          |
|                                  |                   |                                          |
| Shoot It!, Inc.                       | Delaware               | 100%                                          |
|                                  |                   |                                          |
| SuperCaller Community, Inc.           | Delaware               | 100%                                          |
|                                  |                   |                                          |
| D Mobile, Inc.                        | Delaware               | 34.60%                                        |

----
T.C. Mem o. 2 01 5- 70 UNITED STAT ES TAX COURT ALVIN SHELDO N KANOFSKY, Peti ti on er v . COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Resp on de nt Doc ke t No . 22 00 8- 13 L. Fi le d Ap ril 8, 2 01 5. Alv in Sh el do n Kan of

sky , pro se. Brad le y C. Plo va n, fo r res po nd en t.

MEMORANDUM OPINION RUWE , Ju dg e: Pet it io ne r se ek s re vi ew pu rs uantto sec ti on s 6 32 0( b) an d (c) an d 6 33 0( d) (1 ) of

th e d et erm in at io n o f th e In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e to up ho ld 1
Unl es s o th erwi se in di cat ed , all sec ti on refe ren ces are t o the Int ern al 1 Rev enue Co de as a m en de d, an d a ll Ru le refe ren ces are t o the Tax C ou rt R ul es of Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e.- 2 -

[* 2] th e fi li ng of ano ti ce o f Fed eral tax li enforunpa idin co m e ta x fo r 20 06 an d 20 07 . Res po nd en t h as m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t (m ot io n) un de r Ru le 12 1. Pet it io ne r ob

jects . The m at te r is rip e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. At the ti m e th e p et it io n was fil ed , pet it io ne r res id edinPen ns y lv an ia . The unpa idtax for20 06 an d 2 00 7 was th e subjec t o f a rec en tl y de ci de d c as e in vo lv in g apro po se d l ev y . Kano fs ky v. Co m mis si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 5- 34 . In th atcas e th is Co urt uph el d the de te rm in at io n t o p ro ceedwith the lev y . The Co urt reject edpe ti ti on er’s p os it io n i n tha t ca se an d i m po se d a$2 0,0 00 sec ti on 66 73 (a)( 1) pe na lty

be cau se pe ti ti on er’s p os it io n was fri vo lo us an d h is cas e h ad be enin st itut edforth e so le pu rp os e o f de lay . Inth e in st an t ca se pe ti ti on er ra is es th e sa m e fri vo lo us arg um en ts . W e 2 pe rcei ve no ne edto on ce ag ai n re fu te th os e arg um en ts with s om be r rea so ni ng an d co pi ou s ci ta ti on of p rece de nt ; t o d o s o m ig htsu gg es t tha t tho se arg um en ts ha ve so m e m eri t. Cra in v. Co m m is si on er, 7 37 F.2d14 17 (5t h C ir. 1 98 4) .

See a ls o Kan of

sky v. Co m m is si on er, 4 24 Fed . App x. 1 89 (3dCir . 20 11 ) 2 (p er cu ria m), aff’g T.C. Me m o. 2 01 0- 46 ; Kan of sky v. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 20 14 -1 53 . To th e ex te ntpe ti ti on er’s res po ns e (an d a tt ach m en ts th eret o) to res po nd en t’s m ot io n m ig htbe co ns tru edas r ai si ng any othe r arg um en ts , we fin d th em to be equa ll y

fri vo lo us or i rrel ev an t.- 3 -

[* 3] Fo r th e rea so ns st at edinKano fs ky v. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 5- 34 , we up ho ldres po nd en t’s d et erm in at io n re ga rd in g the li enan d wi ll requi re tha t pe ti ti on er p ay

a pe na lty un de r se ct io n 6 67 3( a) i n the am ou ntof $ 20 ,00 0. To re fle ctth e fo reg oi ng , An ap pr op ria te ord er an d de ci si on wil l b e en te red .
Exhibit
32.1





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





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 annual report of Exobox Technologies Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Kampa,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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.








Date:
March 30, 2010








/s/ Richard J. KampaRichard
      J. Kampa,
              Chief
      Executive Officer
#### Jose VELEZ, a/k/a Jose Veliz, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1771.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 9, 1987.

Jose Velez, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

Appellant was sentenced according to guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than those in effect at the time of his offense. The state agrees that as interpreted recently by the Supreme Court in *Miller v. Florida,*482 U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987) this was in violation of the ex post facto prohibition of the United States Constitution.

Appellant also argues that the court should have given him credit for the time served on the sentence when he was resen-tenced after violation of probation. This court has clearly stated that a defendant is entitled to credit for all time spent in jail prior to sentence on his offense. *Ault v. State,*415 So.2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). *See also Wright v. State,*355 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more fully described in the Report); and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated: August 4, 2010

/s/ Craign HodgkinsCraig Hodgkins, President and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5653]


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

FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 03-12]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
open meetings as follows:

Thursday, March 15, 2012:
     10 a.m.--Issuance of Proposed Decisions in Claims Against Libya;
    11 a.m.--Oral Hearings on Objection to Commission's Proposed 
Decisions in Claim No. LIB-II-123;
    12 noon--LIB-II-168.

    Status: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Judith H. Lock, Executive Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. 
Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
    ------------------------------------

Jaleh F. Barrett,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-5653 Filed 3-5-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cavalier Group
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 28, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic
Report), I, Gerald W. Williams, Chief Executive 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: April 12, 2007

/s/ Gerald W. Williams

Gerald W. Williams Chief Executive Officer

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                             642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,063)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,626
<PP&E>                                          13,238
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,076)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 451,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,536
<BONDS>                                        145,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           242
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   451,309
<SALES>                                        475,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               475,620
<CGS>                                          349,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  428,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,010
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,790
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,412
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.80


</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 22, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-1132 Lower Tribunal No. 12-30236

________________ 

### Hector Rivas , Appellant,
vs. 

### Professional Protection & Investigations Agency, Inc. , Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Hector Rivas, in proper person. Reiner & Reiner, P.A., and David P. Reiner, II, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Dismissed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(g)(1) (defining “appellant” as “[a] party who seeks to invoke the appeal jurisdiction of a court”); Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1953) (quoting 16 Am. Jur., Declaratory Judgments) (“In accordance with the fundamental rule that to be entitled to appeal a person must be aggrieved by the judgment, an appeal from a . . . judgment will be dismissed where there is nothing in it prejudicial to the claimed rights of the appellant.”); Portfolio Invs. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting Barnett v. Barnett, 705 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)) (“[A] non-party in the lower tribunal is a ‘stranger to the record’ and, therefore, lacks standing to appeal an order entered by the lower tribunal.”).
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

YOB, GALLAGHER, KRAUSS

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Inmate SOLOMON E. SMITH

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20110706

Headquarters, US Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth

Jeffery R. Nance, Military Judge

Colonel Fred P. Taylor, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Captain Jack D. Einhorn, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Major Robert A. Rodrigues, 

JA; Captain Steve T. Nam, JA (on brief).

31 July 2013

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

KRAUSS, Judge:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant, 

contrary to his pleas, of mutiny, damaging military property, and assault 

consummated by a battery in violation of Articles 94, 108, and 128, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 894, 908, 928 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. 

Appellant was acquitted of kidnapping, disobedience, and two other specifications of 

assault consummated by a battery. The convening authority approved the adjudged 

sentence to twenty-five months confinement.

This case is before the court for review under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant

assigns two errors, one of which merits brief remark and relief. 

Appellant asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to 

support his convictions for damaging military property and assault consummated by 

a battery. The government concedes that the evidence is insufficient to support 
SMITH — ARMY 20110706

2

appellant’s conviction for damage to property but sufficient to support the battery 

conviction. We accept the government’s concession but also find the evidence 

factually insufficient to establish that the battery at issue was accomplished with a 

metal table leg. See generally United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 

2002). See also United States v. Savage, 72 M.J. 560, 567 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 

2013).

In accordance with above, and after reviewing the entire record and the 

parties’ briefs, the finding of guilty as to Charge IV and its Specification is set aside 

and dismissed. The court affirms only so much of the finding of guilty of

Specification 3 of Charge V, as finds that appellant did, on or about 12 August 2010, 

assault SPC A.K., who then was and was then known by the accused to be a person 

then having and in the execution of military police duties, by striking him in the 

face. The remaining findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. Reassessing the sentence 

on the basis of the errors noted, the entire record, and in accordance with the 

principles of United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986), and United States v. 

Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include the factors identified by Judge Baker 

in his concurring opinion in Moffeit, the sentence is AFFIRMED. 

Senior Judge YOB and Judge GALLAGHER concur.

FOR THE COURT:

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
#### Michael H. O’KEEFE v. BREAUX MART GENERAL MEYERS, INC., and Prosper Paul Breaux, Jr.

No. 87-C-0363.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1987.

In re O’Keefe, Michael H.; Atlas Leasing Inc. — Other; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86 CA 418; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 290582.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 598.

Denied. The result is correct.
RICO JUHWAN HUDSON

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 0734

Opinion filed April 4, 2017.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Rico Juhwan Hudson, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is dismissed as

successive. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(6)(C).

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Stanley CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 89-250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 2, 1989.

No appearance for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, while his direct appeal from the judgment and sentence was pending in this court. The trial court improperly considered the motion. *State v. Meneses,*392 So.2d 905 (Fla.1981). Therefore, although we affirm the lower court’s order denying the motion, we do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek post-conviction relief after disposition of the direct appeal and the return of jurisdiction to the lower court. *State v. Meneses,*392 So.2d at 907; *Brown v. State,*528 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); *Sumpter v. State,*523 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); *Libby v. State,*520 So.2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6195]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is 
available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f08482919495919e919c89839983b0969d93de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c080e1d18191d121d10050f150f3c1a111f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 011075-074.
    Title: Central America Discussion Agreement.
    Parties: APL Co. PTE Ltd.; Crowley Latin America Services, LLC.; 
Dole Ocean Cargo Express; Great White Fleet; King Ocean Services 
Limited; and Seaboard Marine, Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street 
NW., Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006-4007.
    Synopsis: The amendment reflects a change in the name of Great 
White Fleet.

     Dated: March 9, 2012.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6195 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|   | Exhibit 32.1 |
|--------|--------------|

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Gary S. Ohlbaum               |
|   | Gary S. Ohlbaum                        |
|   | President, Chief Executive Officer and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                |
|   |                                   |
|   |  March 28, 2011                   |