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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

p0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137203

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 137203 ADB: 07-000037-GA RONALD G. KRAFT, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Michael James EBERHARDT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-79-67.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 11, 1980.

Leslie R. Earl, Jr., Public Defender, Tulsa County, Johnie O’Neal, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., William S. Flanagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On appeal from a judgment and sentence rendered against him in the District Court *79of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF-78-2374, for the offense of Unlawful Possession of Marihuana, Second Offense, 63 O.S.1971, § 2-402, the appellant, Michael James Eber-hardt, contends that the warrantless seizure of the marihuana underlying the charge was a violation of ■ the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. II, § 30, of the Oklahoma Constitution. We disagree.

After arresting the appellant at a convenience store for public drunk, Officer O’Dell of the Tulsa Police Department accompanied the appellant to the appellant’s automobile, which was parked in the store parking lot, to allow the appellant to turn off the engine. It was at that time that the officer observed an open bottle of rum and a plastic bag of marihuana inside the vehicle. After the appellant was placed inside a police cruiser, the officer returned to the appellant’s vehicle and seized the liquor and marihuana.

The appellant relies on *Blackburn*v. *State,*Okl.Cr., 575 P.2d 638 (1978), which we do not deem to be in point since that case involved a search of a private residence. In the instant case, the officer was in a place where he had a right to be when he observed the bottle of liquor and bag of marihuana, in plain view. It would be foolish indeed to require him to leave the automobile unattended in the parking lot, go before a magistrate and file an affidavit for a search warrant, and then return with the warrant, hoping that some passer-by had not disturbed the car and contents in the interim. See *Carroll*v. *United States,*267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed.2d 543 (1924), for a discussion of search and seizure in the context of automobiles.

We are of the opinion that the seizure here was not unreasonable in view of all the circumstances of this case and, for that reason, the judgment and sentence should be and is, hereby, *AFFIRMED.*

BRETT, J., concurs.

CORNISH, P. J., concurs in results.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1002

LAURA D. COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
JOHN HASTY, Indivi dually and as Director of the Virginia Department of Health Professions;EVELYN R. FLEMING, Individually and as Assistant Attorney General assigned to advise the Virginia Department of Health Professions; WARREN W. KOONTZ, M.D.; KAREN E. KNAPP, M.D.; CHARLES H. CROWDER, JR.; JOSEPH A. LEMING, M.D.; ANTHONY U. MOORE; PAUL M. SPECTOR, D.O.; THOMAS A. WASH, M.D., Individually and as Members of the Virginia Board of Medicine; THEVIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE, as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Virginia; GEORGEALLEN, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia; U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, as an executive agency within the United States Department of Justice; SEVEN UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, designated herein as T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z, Individually and as Officials of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration; CLARKE RUSS, M.D.; THERESA FAHY KASEMAN, D.P.M., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-780)2 Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laura D. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Carlotta Porter Wells, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing hercivil action. The district court found that Appellant lacked standing. We find no reversible error. See Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) (party must allege personal injury fairly traceableto allegedly unlawful conduct). Consequently, we affirm the district court's dismissal of her action. To the extent Appellant appeals the denial of her motion for a temporary restraining order,we dismiss the appeal as moot. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
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 Inverso Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and
on the dates 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 to his knowledge:



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 operation
of the Company.



3.
 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.









Date:
 November 15, 2007



By:
/s/ Randall S. Goulding

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

Randall
S. Goulding

Chief
Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Serge Atlan, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INverso Corp.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly 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 upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.  

Date: October 15, 2005 

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan 

    Serge Atlan

    Chairman
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8896]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR; ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Indian Point Nuclear 
Generating Units 2 and 3); Notice of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Reconstitution

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and 2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board (Board) in the above-captioned Indian Point proceeding 
is hereby reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge Michael F. 
Kennedy to serve on the Board in place of Administrative Judge Kaye D. 
Lathrop.
    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall continue 
to be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. See 10 CFR 2.302 
et seq.

     Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of April 2012.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2012-8896 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 2002






I, Peter
J. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands Holdings,
Inc.




/s/
      Peter J. AndersonName:
            Peter
      J. AndersonTitle:
            Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
            November
      10, 2008
Appendix A

Tribal Seafood Pandemic Response and Safety Grant 

Program (TSPRS)

Appendix A: Eligible Industry Groups

Seafood Processing and Tribal Ownership Definitions

The Tribal Seafood Pandemic Response and Safety (TSPRS) Grant Program provides grants to seafood processing 

facilities and processing vessels owned and operated by Federally recognized Tribal entities, as defined in the 

List Act of 1994. 

Seafood Processing

Eligible entities must be seafood processing facilities and processing vessels, including at-sea processors or 

dealers. 

Processor means the owner, operator, dealer, or agent responsible for any activity that changes the physical 

condition of a fisheries resource suitable for human consumption, retail sale, industrial uses, or long-term 

storage, including cooking, canning, smoking, salting, drying, shucking, filleting, freezing, or rendering into meal 

or oil. Any owner, operator, dealer, or agent exclusively gutting, gilling, heading, or icing seafood without 

performing any of the above activities is not considered a processor.

At-sea processor means a vessel or other platform that floats and can be moved from one location to another, 

whether in State waters or water of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), receiving fish and operating as a 

processor.

Dealer means an entity that first receives fish by way of purchase and sells directly to restaurants, markets, 

other dealers, processors, or consumers without substantially altering the product.

Tribal Ownership and Operation

Wholly owned by a Tribal government, as defined by the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 

USC §5130, §5131 (“the List Act”) and implemented through regulations at 86 FR 7554, which can be found at 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/29/2021-01606/indian-entities-recognized-by-andeligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-884]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS 
Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B 
Subcommittee.
    Date: February 8-9, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Nancy Lewis Ernst, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge 
Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, (301) 451-7383, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#147a757a776d3a71667a6760547a7d7c3a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c121d121f0552190e120f083c121514521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-884 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Charles COSSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4646.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 9, 1980.

William P. Bryson, Drathman, Weidner & Bryson, Anchorage, for appellant.

Larry R. Weeks, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Charles Cossey appeals the denial of a motion to reduce sentence brought pursuant to Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). The question is whether or not the superior court abused its discretion in denying the motion. *See Brandon v. State,*581 P.2d 1116, 1118 (Alaska 1978). We hold it did not. *See Davis v. State,*566 P.2d 640, 643 (Alaska 1977).

AFFIRMED.

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

In my opinion the superior court abused its discretion in not granting Cossey’s motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to reduce sentence.

The motion to reconsider was aimed at the superior court’s determination that there had been no substantial change in the circumstances or attitude of Cossey that warranted modification of his sentence under Criminal Rule 35(a). Cossey appeared as the sole witness in his own behalf at the *69hearing on the initial motion to reduce the sentence, and the documents supporting the motion to reconsider emphasized the differences between Cossey’s inability to articulate his attitudes in a courtroom setting as contrasted to his ability to communicate with his counsel in private, as well as the opinion of Cossey held by other individuals who have knowledge of his changed circumstances. Counsel for Cossey averred that he was prepared to submit additional affidavits, letters, and testimony “to demonstrate that the impressions gathered from defendant’s statements alone are not truly indicative of his current potential and sentencing stature.”

The record of the hearing contains considerable evidence of a change in circumstances and attitude by Cossey since his release on bail pending appeal which could justify a reduction in sentence. He had enrolled in community college courses and received work-study grants from the college, although he satisfactorily completed only a welding course. He had obtained part-time employment, in contrast to a history of non-employment prior to his conviction for possession of heroin. No evidence of any continued association with the drug community by Cossey was presented at the hearing, in contrast to the information contained in the pre-sentencing reports. The determination of the superior court thus seems to be based in part on disbelief in the sincerity of Cossey regarding the steps he had taken to change his lifestyle and his claims of reforming his attitude. Given the claim that Cossey had difficulty communicating effectively in a courtroom situation, I believe the court therefore abused its discretion in not permitting counsel for Cossey to corroborate Cossey’s testimony and further elaborate on the change in his circumstances through additional evidence.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. WR-91, 531-01

EX P ART E B EN ADE TO VEGA TORRE S I I I

, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A WRIT OF HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NO. 11360 I N THE 287 DI STRI CT COURT T H

F ROM P ARM ER COUNT Y

P er cur iam

.

O P I N I O N

A ppl i can t pl eade d gui l

t y t o del i v ery o f m ari

h uan a i n a dr ug f ree zo n e an d was s en

t en ced t o

f o ur years ’ i

m pri s o n m en t

. A ppl i can t f i l ed t h i s appl i cat i o n f

o r a wr i t o f h ab eas co rpus i

n t h e co un

t y

o f co n v i ct i o n

, an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f o rwarded i

t t o t h i s C o u r t

. S e e T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art

.

11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds t h at h i s pl ea was i n v o l un t ary b eca us e t ri al co un s el wro n gl

y adv i s ed

A ppl i can t t h at h e wo ul d b e el i gi

b l e f o r paro l e. Ba s ed o n t h e reco rd, t h e t ri al co urt h as det erm i n ed

t h at t ri al co un s el ’ s perf

o rm an ce was def

i ci en t an d t h at A

ppl i can t wo ul d h av e i

n s i s t ed o n a t ri al b ut

f o r co un s el ’ s def

i ci en t perf o rm an ce.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. Hill v. Lockhar t

, 474 U.S

. 52 (1985) ; E x par te Mouss az adeh

, 361 S. W

. 3d2

684 (T ex

. Cri

m

. A pp. 2012). T h e j udgm en t i n caus e n um b er 3603 i

n t h e 287 D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f

th

Parm er Co un

t y i s s et as i de, an d A

ppl i can t i s rem an ded t o t h e cus t o dy o f t h e Sh eri f f o f Parm er Co un

t y

t o an s wer t h e ch arges as s et o ut i n t h e i n di ct m en t

. T h e t ri al co urt s h al l i s s ue an y n ece s s ary b en ch

warran t wi t h i n t en day s f

ro m t h e dat e o f t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: Oct o b er 28, 2020

Do n o t pub l i s h