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

| 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 as of the dates and for the periods covered by the report. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/  Robert J. Halloran, Jr.           |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert J. Halloran, Jr.                          |   |
|   | President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 8, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

129733 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING Stephen J. Markman, COMPANY, INC., Justices Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,

v SC: 129733 COA: 249847 Oakland CC: 2001-032203-CK STEVEN DAILEY and JANINE DAILEY, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs/ Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees, and

GEORGE H. PRESLEY, and ABN-AMRO, d/b/a STANDARD FEDERAL BANK, Defendants, and

JEFFRY R. HARTMAN, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of May 4, 2006, we GRANTED the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, limited to the questions involving the Michigan Consumer Protection Act’s application to residential builders. We now VACATE the opinion of the Court of Appeals to the extent it is inconsistent with Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc , ____ Mich ____ (Docket No. 1300 64, decided June 6, 2007). Howe ver, because the defendant seeks to rely on the affirmative defense provide d in MCL 445.904(1)(a), and the defendant
failed to raise the affirmative defense of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act exemption of regulated activities in his firs t responsive pleading, that defense is not properly before this Court. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consiste nt with this order and Liss

.

t0530 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 8, 2007

Clerk
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 04-40347

Summary Calendar

_______________________

JOHN PERRY LOVE,

Plaintiff,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS; BILLY RAY NELSON; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS; STATE BAR OF TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees,

versus

ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF

Movant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin

(9:03-cv-170)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

The appeal in this case is hereby dismissed as Elijah Ratcliff has no standing to 

appeal this matter.
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 China Unistone Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2006 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I James Z. Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ James Z. Li                                     Dated: November 20, 2006
    -----------------------------
    James Z. Li
    Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6471
In Re: OWEN ODMAN, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-96-53-4) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Owen Odman, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Owen Odman petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motions filed subsequent to his conviction and sentencing. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. Odman has also moved to amend his mandamus petition to request an order directing the district court to compel the United States Attorney’s office to begin an investigation of motions filed under Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for certain of his co-defendants. We grant the motion to amend. However, this relief is not available by way of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-22-2005

NLRB v. DA Nolt Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-2321

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"NLRB v. DA Nolt Inc" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 913.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/913
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 04-2321, 04-2681

 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

 Petitioner/Cross-Respondent

v.

D.A. NOLT, INC.

 Respondent/Cross-Petitioner

Argued: February 14, 2005

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 22, 2005)

 

ORDER SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

The petition for panel rehearing is granted to the extent that an amended judgment

shall be entered. 

S/ Ruggero J. Aldisert

Circuit Judge

DATED: June 22, 2005

CMH/cc: DH, KDV, TCZ
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 90

To authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional

Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings

and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect

and the Vice President-elect of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. DODD) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the

Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies

in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and

the Vice President-elect of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL.

4 The rotunda of the United States Capitol is author5 ized to be used on January 20, 2001, by the Joint Con6 gressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connec7 tion with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for
2

•SCON 90 ATS

1 the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi2 dent-elect of the United States.

Æ
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Blackhawk Capital Group
BDC, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig A. Zabala, 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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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.
 
 
 By:
      /s/ Craig A. ZabalaCraig
      A. Zabala, Chief Executive OfficerApril
      21, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20690-20691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8134]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0027; Notice No. 4]


Northeast Corridor Safety Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of the Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NECSC) 
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the second meeting of the NECSC, a Federal 
Advisory Committee mandated by Section 212 of the Passenger Rail 
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). The NECSC is made up of 
stakeholders operating on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), and the purpose 
of the Committee is to provide annual recommendations to the DOT 
Secretary. NECSC's meeting topics will include: Positive Train Control 
update presentations from NEC railroads, Transportation Security 
Administration NEC security initiatives, aging electric traction 
infrastructure, the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, and a 
general discussion of safety issues.

DATES: The NECSC meeting is scheduled to commence on Thursday, May 24, 
2012, at 9 a.m., and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The NECSC meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel 
Philadelphia Downtown, located at 1800 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA. 
The meeting is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, 
and is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign and oral 
interpretation can be made available if requested 10 calendar days 
before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Woolverton, NECSC 
Administrative Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6212; or Mr. Robert Lauby, 
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety 
Officer, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 
20590, (202) 493-6300.

[[Page 20691]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NECSC is mandated by a statutory 
provision in Section 212 of the PRIIA (codified at 49 U.S.C. 24905(f)). 
This Committee is chartered by the DOT Secretary and is an official 
Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, Title 5 
U.S.C.--Appendix.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-8134 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 79 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington 
                            Soap Box Derby.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be permitted to 
sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on 
June 23, 2001, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

    The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be free of 
admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere with the 
needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except that the 
Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

    For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized 
to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event 
to be carried out under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make any such additional arrangements that may be 
required to carry out the event under this resolution.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event to be 
carried out under this resolution.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended April 1, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A. Ebner, 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:

 

(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/   JOHN A. EBNER       |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| John   A. Ebner           |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer |   |
| May 9,   2011        |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2022

 

In connection with the Annual Report of BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of the signatures below (the Report), Jim Mattingly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their respective knowledge:

 
|               |        |        |                   |                                                      |
|---------------|--------|--------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| March 6, 2024 |   |   | /s/ Jim Mattingly |
| Date          |   |   |              | Jim Mattingly                                        |
|          |   |   |              | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|          |   |   |              | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |

 

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42503

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

DIMAS ROBERT NARVAIZ, II

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 488

Filed: May 14, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. George D. Carey , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Dimas Robert Narvaiz, II, entered an Alford 1 plea to attempted strangulation . I.C. § 18

-

923

. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court

sentenced Narvaiz to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of

three years, to run concurrent with an unrelated sentence . The district court retained jurisdiction,

and Narvaiz was sent to participate in the rider program.

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 After Narvaiz compl eted his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction without

reducing Narvaiz’s sentence

. Narvaiz appeals, claiming that his sentence is excessive and

constitutes an abuse of discretion and that the district court erred by not reducing Narvaiz ’s

sentence upon relinquishment of jurisdiction. 2

Narvaiz contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the

factors to be con sidered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well

- established.

State v. Burdett , 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez , 115 Idaho 776,

769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke , 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982);

State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a

sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170

P.3d 387, 391 (2007).

The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Narvaiz ’s sentence are affirmed.

2 The state’s brief addressed Narvaiz’s appeal as being from the denial of an I.C.R. 35

motion for reduction of sentence. Narvaiz does not raise this as an issue . Therefore, we do not address this on appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ADRIANA SANTOS

,

Appellant,

v.

CARLOS GARCIA

,

Appell ee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00317

- C V

Appeal from the

49th Judicial District Court

of Webb County, Texas

(TC# 2019

- CVG

- 001704

- D1 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant all costs of appeal for which let execution issue. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20 24

.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, J J

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1311003
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6343016
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1941000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6802339
<PP&E>                                         9625911
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2363130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                23855363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11290253
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     440510
<COMMON>                                        131338
<OTHER-SE>                                  (17525211)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  23855363
<SALES>                                       25649417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              25649417
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 45295360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8404418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (27780073)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (27780073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (178006)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (27958079)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.14)


</TABLE>
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Application for renewal of exemption (U.S.

- Russia)