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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

p0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

138639 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138639 

 COA: 277987 

Livingston CC: 04-014514-FH 

ROGER CHASTON, JR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in 

People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549 (2009). 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider People v Idziak, 484 

Mich 549 (2009).
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7855]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``Quay Brothers: On Deciphering the Pharmacist's 
Prescription for Lip-Reading Puppets''

AGENCY: State Department.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Quay Brothers: On Deciphering the 
Pharmacist's Prescription for Lip-Reading Puppets'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about August 12, 2012, until on or 
about January 7, 2013; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-9915 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Order entered September 1 6 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00957
- CV BRIAN A. SMALE, Appellant
V. JOHN S. SMALE, PAMEL A ANN WILLIAMS, JASO N L. WILLIAMS, AND MICHELLE WILLIAMS, Appellee s On Appeal from the 4 29th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 50581
- 2014 

### O RDER
T his is a pro se appeal from the trial court’s July 18, 2015 order of dismissal. According to appellant’s docketing statement, which was served on Evaleen M. Da vis via email, appellees Pamela Ann Williams, Jason L. Williams, and Michelle Williams are represented by Ms. Davis

. However, in an August 24, 2015 amended notice of nonrepresentation, Ms. Davis stated she represented appellee John S. Smale, who is deceas ed, in the trial court but is not “represent[ing] anyone in connection with this matter.” In a supplement to the amended nonrepresentation notice, Ms. Davis stated that she “received by email a document purporting to show [appellant] appearing on behalf o f the estate of John S. Smale.”Generally, if a party to a civil case dies after the trial court renders judgment but before the case has been finally disposed on appeal, the appea l will proceed as if all parties were alive.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 7.1 (a)(1)

. Although the clerk’s record has not been filed , documents filed in another case involving the same parties reflect John S. Smale died April 9, 2014, before the trial court rendered judgment in this case. Where a party dies before the decision of the t rial court is rendered, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 150

- 15 5 apply. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 150

- 15 5

. To better understand the posture of this case and because the appellate record is not due until November 16, 2015, we ORDER Collin County District Clerk A ndrea Stroh Thompson to file, no later than September 25, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the latest filed pleadings by all parties, the trial court’s docket sheet, and all orders of the trial court, including the July 18, 2015 order of dism issal. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Jill Willis, Presiding Judge of the 429th Judicial District Court; Ms. Thompson; Ms. Davis ; and Brian A. Smale. We further DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy to Pamela Sm ale Williams at wizardress.of.aahs@gmail.com and Jason Lawrence Williams at jwilliams9106@yahoo.com

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

 Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT February 10, 2022

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of cotton. The cotton bales were

sold on The SEAM dated February 9, 2022.

Offer No. Catalog Location Pounds

Sold

Bales 

Sold

Price Sold 

(per Pound) CCC Revenue

TS1127185 TN 463 1 $.1240 $57.41

TS1127187 AL, LA, MS, & TN 9,229 19 $.2815 $2,597.96
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Nickelson, Also Known as Reginald Nicholson, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered January 19, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and *493criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years, and *2 Vs*to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed; order of the same Court, entered June 6, 1990, denying defendant’s *pro se*motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the shooting death of an acquaintance, following a midnight argument, in a Bronx social club. The People’s witnesses observed defendant and the deceased engaged in loud argument, during which time the deceased produced a gun. After the argument subsided, the deceased placed the gun back behind the bar, where he was working. When the deceased turned momentarily to speak to one of the People’s witnesses, defendant reached over behind the bar, grabbed the gun, pointed it at the deceased, and fired three shots. The medical examiner’s testimony established that the shots were fired from within two feet. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. Further, as trial counsel never requested submission of lesser-included offenses, any such claim was waived. In any event, no reasonable view of the evidence would have supported submission of lesser-included offenses (CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61).

Nor did defendant preserve any challenge either to qualification of the medical examiner or to the substance of her testimony. In any event, we find no basis to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion in concluding that the medical examiner was competent to render conclusions as to how the wound was inflicted. Finally, defendant failed to carry his heavy burden of demonstrating that he was denied meaningful representation at trial. *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.
'Unitcd &16tates ^cnatc 

WASI--IINGTON, DC 20510 

May 19, 2014 

Janet McCabe 

Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Acting Assistant Administrator MeCabe, 

We write to request that you consider the views of Colorado's rural electric cooperatives as you 

work to craft and finalize the EPA's rules to control carbon pollution from existing power 

plants. Some Colorado rural electric cooperatives and households that we represent are 

concerned that the usual 60-day comment period may not be sufficient for them to adequately 

compile their thoughts on a rule of this scope and potential impact to such a broad range of 

stakeholders. "1'herefore, we ask that you strongly consider an extension beyond this 60-day 

period th,at allows for thorough compilation of comments representing the rural perspective. 

Colorado's municipalities, investor-owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives have made 

great strides in increasing energy efficiency and deploying renewable sources like wind, solar, 

and geothermal in recent years. These advances make our state well-positioned to comply with 

commonsense rules that seek to reduce carbon pollution. As EPA contemplates these rules, we 

hope you will take the perspectives of our rural electricity consumers and providers into account 

and allow them ample time to offer feedback on the agency's proposals. We feel that on any 

proposal with implications of this magnitude, the federal government should strive for maximum 

public participation and include a longer period than is normally planned. 

'1'hank you for your consideration and your commendable work to clean up the nation's air 

through your upcoming rulemaking.

Sincerely,

K6,A. L 

Miehael F. 13ennet	

Mark Udall 

United States Senator	

United States Scnator 

PRIN'ED ON RECYCIkD PAPER
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00040 - CV RICKYE HENDERSON , A PPELLANT V. MUAYAD ALMAHBOBI AND SCHUH FAMILY LP , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court No . D - 1 - GN - 22 - 002051 , Honorable Madeleine Connor , Presiding 

### May 9 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant , Rickye Henderson, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order Granting Defendant Schuh Family LP’s Traditional and No - Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment
. 1 P ending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the interlocutory

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

appeal for want of jurisdi ction filed by Appellee, Schuh Family LP. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal
. In May 2022, Henderson sued Appellees, Muayad Almahbobi and Schuh Family, for breach of contract and other claims related to a purported sublease of commercial prope rty. Appellees answered the suit
. Schuh Family filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory relief and attorney’s fees . Schuh Family later moved for summary judgment on Henderson’s claims. On December 16, 2022, the trial court signed an order granting Schuh Family’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Henderson’s claims against it
. Henderson appeal ed the summary judgment order with Schuh Family’s counterclaim and Henderson’s claims against Almahbobi still pending
. We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har - Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352
– 53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). “[W] hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it final ly disposes of all claims and all parties. ” Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 205. Here, the trial court’s summary judgment order is not a final judgment as it does not include any finality language, nor does it dispose of all pending parties and claims. Further , w e have found no statutory authority permitting its interlocutory appeal.3

Schuh F amily now moves to dismiss the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. Henderson has filed a response to the motion, but failed to demonstrate grounds for continuing th e appeal. Because Henderson has not presented this Court with a final judgment or appealable order, we grant Schuh Family’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). Per Curiam
Exhibit 32.1 Certificate:

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT OF GRAY PEAKS, INC.

I, the
undersigned, being the one of the Co-Chief Executive Officers, respectively, of Gray Peaks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge and belief, that (1) the Report
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) 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:
May 15, 2006

/s/ Tim R. Sensenig

---

Tim R. Sensenig

Title: Co-Chief Executive
Officer
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON 

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of cotton. T

sold on The SEAM dated September 12, 2022. 

Offer No. Catalog Location Pounds Sold Bales Sold Price Sold (per Pound) CC

TS1132969 LA 476 1 $.2125 

TS1132970 AR, MS, MO, and TN 9,281 19 $.3131
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARIO ERNESTO VILLABONAALVARADO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-55477

D.C. Nos. 2:13-cv-05080-GHK

2:88-cr-00972-GHK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015**

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Mario Ernesto Villabona-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s 

judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his 

convictions stemming from a 1990 trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-55477

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Villabona-Alvarado claims that evidence discovered after the resolution of 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion provides a basis for vacating his convictions. We 

review de novo the district court’s denial of Villabona-Alvarado’s coram nobis

petition. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007). The 

district court properly refused to hear Villabona-Alvarado’s repetitive petition 

given that he presented no evidence of “manifest injustice or a change in law.” 

Polizzi v. United States, 550 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Matus-Leva 

v. United States, 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A petitioner may not resort to 

coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping 

requirements.”). Moreover, Villabona-Alvarado’s claims fail to demonstrate an 

error of “the most fundamental character.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 

591, 604 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
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 American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective
Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beth M. Halberstadt, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Beth M. HalberstadtBeth M. HalberstadtChief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2007
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


                           GOTHIC ENERGY CORPORATION
           LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

     Re:  GOTHIC ENERGY CORPORATION
          REGISTRATION ON FORMS S-3 AND S-8

Gentlemen:

     We are aware that our report dated October 29, 1999 on our review of the
interim financial information of Gothic Energy Corporation for the periods ended
September 30, 1999 and 1998 and included in the Company's quarterly report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 1999, is incorporated by
reference in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-
68085 and 333-38679) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-82287, 333-82291, and 333-
82289).




                           PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
October 29, 1999
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 90 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating 

to ‘‘Community Reinvestment Act Regulations’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 
2 

•HJ 90 EH 

1 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency relating to 

2 ‘‘Community Reinvestment Act Regulations’’ (85 Fed. 

3 Reg. 34734; published June 5, 2020), and such rule shall 

4 have no force or effect. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 90 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapAct Regulations’’. Currency relating to ‘‘Community Reinvestment submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
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, Randall K. Gausman, 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 Tut Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tut Systems, Inc.



By:

/s/ Randall K. GausmanRandall K. GausmanVice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary




Date: October 27, 2005
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-11-0000641 

13-APR-2015 

11:51 AM 

SCWC-11-0000641
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

CINDY CHURAN KODAMA,


Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,
 

vs.
 

ALAN HARUO KODAMA,


Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. 


CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-11-0000641; FC-D NO. 08-1-2862)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee Cindy Churan Kodama’s
 

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on March 17, 2015, is
 

hereby rejected.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 13, 2015. 

R. Steven Geshell 

for petitioner
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 Peter Van Name Esser and
 

Edward R. Lebb
 

for respondent
 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
**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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Sundaresan Raja, 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, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of the operations of the
      Company.





/s/
      Sundaresan Raja





Sundaresan
      Raja


Chief
      Executive Officer





September
      22, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00806-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.M. 

From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023MH02140

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. It is 

ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because appellant 

qualifies as indigent under Rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 20. The clerk of the court shall issue the mandate instanter. See id. at R. 18.1(c).

SIGNED October 4, 2023.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Whole Farm Revenue Protection is offered to protect any crop in any county in the United States. This policy insures whole farm revenue (based on historical tax records), and allows for the introduction of a new crop like hemp during the current insurance year. Will USDA help farmers explore whole farm revenue protection as a means to insure hemp production? Will you also have a single-crop revenue protection policy available for hemp producers in the near future, say one to two years?

Jeff Schahczenski

Agricultural and Natural Resource Economist

National Center for Appropriate Technology and ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture

3040 Continental Drive

Butte, MT 59702