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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth 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.

March 6, 2015

Order 

March 6, 2015

149259(91)(93)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

BRANDON LEWIS CAIN,

Defendant-Appellee.

SC: 149259

COA: 314342

Wayne CC: 12-005176-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of 

Michigan to share oral argument time with counsel for defendant-appellee and to extend 

the time for filing an amicus curiae brief are GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on

February 13, 2015, is accepted for filing.
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE. 

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
U.S. No. 1 Damage Serious Damage

USDA Visual Aid BLK-1 July 2018

RED DRUPELET
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8359]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday April 10, 2012 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-8359 Filed 4-3-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2007 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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, as amended; and

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

Date: November 13, 2007


                                                /s/ Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.
                                                Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21112-21113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8389]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

[[Page 21113]]


ACTION: Notice of permit issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21, 2012, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit was issued on April 3, 2012 to: 
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Permit No. 2012-016, Ms. Celia Lang 
(Principal in Charge).

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-8389 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

*Summary:*                     The National Science Foundation (NSF) published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 2, 2012, a notice of an open meeting for the Biological Sciences Advisory Committee, #1110. This notice is to correct the year of the meeting date.                

## Correction

                    On page 19740, column 2, under                     *Date and Time,*                     please replace “April 26, 2011; 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.” with “April 26, 2012; 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.”                

 Dated: April 5, 2012.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-8623 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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
FalconTarget, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

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

and

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

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: February 15, 2006

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner

Thomas Kirchner

Chief Executive Officer

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

* 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.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Artcraft
III Inc. for the quarter ending February 28, 2005, I, John Lopes, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Artcraft III Inc. hereby
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 and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ending February
          28, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending February 28, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Artcraft III Inc.

Dated:  April 19, 2005

ARTCRAFT III INC.


By: /s/ John Lopes
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DREDON DEVONTE EDWARD

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 4882

[February 24, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Lisa Porter , Judge; L.T. Case No. 13

- 7840CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorn ey General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Tucker v. State

, 174 So. 3d 485 , 487

- 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (providing “[t]he remedy for an illegal sentence based upon a negotiated plea is to seek to withdraw the plea” by filing an “appropriate rule 3.850 motion”); see also Nedd v. State , 855 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“In that proceeding, the State wi ll have the option to either agree to a resentencing or withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges.”).

W ARNER
, S TEVENSON and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Nowak, Appellee, *v.*Board of Review, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, et al., Appellants. Baim, Appellee, *v.*Board of Review, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, et al., Appellants.

(Nos. 31425 and 31426

Decided December 29, 1948.)

*536
      *Mr. Robert N. Zanville,*for appellees.

*Mr. Hugh 8. Jenkins,*attorney general, *Mr. John M. Woy*and *Mr. Roland B. Lee,*for appellants.

By the Court.

These controversies have resolved themselves into the sole question whether there is evidence in the records tending to show that the claimants were “reasonably fitted” for the work offered to them, as provided by Section 1345-6 *a et seq.,*General Code. If so, the compensation was properly suspended.

*537In the first ease the claimant said:

> “I did not accept the referral.

> “I work in the garment industry and earn $36 for 35 hours per week. I do not think I should have to accept a job paying- so much less.”

This statement discloses no complaint about not being- reasonably fitted for the proffered alteration work in a store selling- ladies ’ garments; and the administrator found that the wage offered the claimant by the store was the prevailing wage for that type of work in Toledo.

In another statement this claimant said:

> “I did not accept this referral to Millers Vogue because I had been there once before to see about work before I was hired at Flaums. I did not want to work at Millers because the wages were low and the hours long. Working- where I do I can get home early and take care of my husband’s meals because he works at night. I am a worker at Flaums, and will return there when the season opens. ’ ’

In the second case the claimant made the following-similar statement:

> “I talked with USES on 5/29/45 and they wanted to send me to the Iiettrick Mfg. Co. as a sewing machine operator. I did not accept the referral. I have worked in the cloak and suit industry for 42 years and am now out of work due to a seasonal layoff. I expect to get back to work in a week or so.”

The proffered work involved sewing heavier cloth and required some training. However, the administrator found that the claimant was reasonably fitted for that work and that the employer offered prevailing wages for similar work in the community.

Under such circumstances the administrator was .justified in suspending the unemployment compensation. The purpose of this law is to assist those who are unfortunate enough to be involuntarily unem*538ployed, but it is not intended to benefit those who capriciously refuse similar work for which they are reasonably fitted and for which they can receive wages prevailing for similar work in the community.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the decisions of the board of review affirmed.

*judgments reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Zimmerman, J., concurs in cause No, 31425, but dissents in cause No. 31426.
[No. 17942-3-II.

Division Two.

June 7, 1996.]

#### Roger Hanson, *Respondent,*v. Schoenfeld’s Furniture, Inc., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 91-2-02296-3, Arthur W.Verharen, J. entered December 30, 1993. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, A.C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Turner, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Roy H. Chestnutt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grande Communications Holdings, 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)) 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 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.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2006 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    ROY H.
CHESTNUTT
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | Roy H. Chestnutt                     
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
**Exhibit 10.4**

**DEGOLYERAND MACNAUGHTON**

500  |  SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

June 25, 2007 

Repsol YPF, S.A. 

Paseo de la Castellana 278 – 280 

28046 Madrid 

Spain 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton and the inclusion of information derived from our reports in Section 2.2.1.1. “Oil and Gas Reserves” in Repsol YPF, S.A.’s annualreport on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31 2006, and in the “Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (unaudited information)” in the Consolidated Financial Statements included therein.

We also consent to the reference to DeGolyer and MacNaughton and the inclusion of information derived from our reports throughincorporation by reference of the named Form 20-F in Registration Statements Nos. 333-12254 and 333-10668 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Our reports referenced above consist of evaluations of certain areas in which Repsol YPF has interests in Argentina, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela using an as-of date of September 30, 2006, and in the Gulf ofMexico, U.S.A., using an as-of date of December 31, 2006.
#### Shallcross *versus*Smith.

1. A married woman and her husband executed *& joint*bond with warrant; judgment was entered on it against both: *Held,*that as to the wife the bond and warrant were a nullity and the judgment against her could be stricken off.

2. The bond and warrant being a nullity as to the wife, itwas the husband’s bond singly and it was not error to refuse to strike off the judgment as to him.

February 16th 1875.

Before Agnew, C. J., Sharswood, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson and Woodward, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of *Philadelphia:*Of July Term 1875, No. 28.

On the 11th of September 1871, Samuel S. Shallcross and Lamira A. Shallcross his wife, entered into a joint bond for $7400, conditioned for the payment of $3700. The bond was secured by a mortgage of the same parties on the real estate of the wife. She •died May 8th 1873. The real estate was sold under the mortgage, November 8th 1873, for $3188.54. On the 31st of March 1874, judgment was entered on the bond and warrant against Samuel S. Shallcross and Lamira A. Shallcross. Under a fieri facias issued February 20th 1875, on this judgment, the interest of Samuel S. Shallcross in certain real estate was levied on and condemned, and a vend. ex. issued, which was stayed. A rule was taken to strike off the judgment.

The court (Allison P. J.) discharged the rule, on the ground that the bond, though joint, was operative against the party competent to contract.

Shallcross took a writ of error, and assigned for error the decree discharging his rule.

*P. Wilson*(with whom was *H. Gf. Ward),*for plaintiff in error.—

Judgment on a joint warrant of attorney can be entered only against all the makers: Dalrymple *v.*Fraser, 15 Law Jour., N. S. 193; Gee *v.*Lane, 15 East 592 ; Raw *v.*Alderson, 7 Taunt. 453; Hunt *v.*Chamberlain, 3 Halst. 336; Harris *v.*Wade, 1 Chit. 322; Wood *v.*Heath, Id. 708, note.

*133
      *W. 0. ITannis,*for defendant in error. —

A bond and warrant of a married woman being absolutely void (Keiper *v.*Helfricker, 6 Wright 325; Steinman *v.*Ewing, 7 Id. 63; Glidden *v.*Strupler, 2 P. F. Smith 400), they are to be treated as if executed by the husband alone. A contract signed by an infant or feme covert and one *sui juris,*is binding on the one *sui juris:*Addison on Contracts 970; 2 Hilliard on Contracts 132; Swanzey *v.*Parker, 14 Wright 452; Motteux *v.*St. Aubin, 2 W. Black. 1133.

March 6th 1876,

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,

Per. Curiam.

— The warrant of attorney and bond of Mrs. Shallcross were a mere nullity. The entry of judgment on it was not binding on her and can be stricken off. But it does not follow that the bond and warrant are void as to her husband, Samuel S. Shallcross. Being void as to her, it was his bond singly. We see no error in refusing to strike off the judgment as to him.

Judgment affirmed.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Banorablo 6. F. Hlokerson 

County Auditor 

E!ontgomery County 

Conroe, '=0X80 

Tour reqwet ror 

runy conaldered by this da 

quest as rouow8: _ 

n reoeiredbl oweuots froul your rareed by me, an 

to dfsagree wl 

th8t the diSr 

OOUTt8 Of th 

the di8trfot 

opinion it wtm not 

u88 set up to furrry on the work. 

thi8 VieUpOint, uh8t WOUid 

r the legality of supplying thle 

srred to in your letter. 

ion la oorreot. A oopy of this opfn- 
&bnorsble A. F, ~OkOC80~, P8m 2 

It is therefore our opinion that the Commia8loner8* 

Court ha8 no ruthorlty to expend County funds for SUpp11CrS 

and stationery for a Qiatrlot oourt raportw. 

Ve.ri truly your8 

, !
[No. 14305-8-III.

Division Three.

June 6, 1996.]

#### Harry J. Jackson, d/b/a H.J. Construction, *Respondent,*v. Steven Irby, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 92-2-01428-8, Stephen M. Brown, J., entered August 26, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Munson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Thompson, J.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 1:00 P.M. CT December 5, 2019

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2020U0009 dated December 4, 2019.

Invitation 2020U0009

Catalog Lot 

No. Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds 

Sold 

Price Sold 

(per 

Pound)

CCC Revenue 

1 BLYTHEVILLE, AR BACO TRADING, INC. 128,046 0.5685 $ 72,794.15 

2 BLYTHEVILLE, AR BACO TRADING, INC. 127,749 0.5585 $ 71,347.82 

3 BLYTHEVILLE, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 11,836 0.4902 $ 5,802.01 

4 DELL, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 15,067 0.497 $ 7,488.30 

5 DUMAS, AR BACO TRADING, INC. 125,424 0.542 $ 67,979.81 

6 DUMAS, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 996 0.1025 $ 102.09 

7 DUMAS, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 96,217 0.5499 $ 52,909.73 

8 MC GEHEE, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 5,073 0.462 $ 2,343.73 

9 MONETTE, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 480 0.1025 $ 49.20 

14 LAKE PROVIDENCE, LA ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 6,343 0.4469 $ 2,834.69 

15 BLYTHEVILLE, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 13,959 0.4293 $ 5,992.60 

17 MANILA, AR ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 471 0.1025 $ 48.28 

20 MEMPHIS, TN BACO TRADING, INC. 82,313 0.574 $ 47,247.66 

21 BROWNSVILLE, TN ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 10,785 0.4057 $ 4,375.47 

24 JACKSON, TN ALLENBERG COTTON CO. 1,435 0.1025 $ 147.09 

25 MILAN, TN BACO TRADING, INC. 92,297 0.562 $ 51,870.91 

718,491 $ 393,333.53