alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Ronald Newell and Jody McBride

Appellate case number: 01

- 2 2

- 00 238

- CV

Trial court case number: 2021

- 50845

Trial court: 190 th District Court of Harris County

On March 30 , 2022

, relator s , Ronald Newell and Jody McBride , filed a petition for
writ of mandamus arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion for partial summary judgment of real parties in interest Jacob Anslum, Jill Anslum, and Dustin Dittman, defendants and counter

- plaintiffs in the underlying litigation, and Slegte
Hond

, LLC, intervenor in the underlying litigation. In the mandamus petition, relators request that this Court direct the tr ial court to vacate its February 22, 2022 “Order Granting
Defendants/Counter

- Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor’s Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Effectiveness of the Receiver’s Proxy.”

On April 4, 2022, relator s filed an “ Emergency Mot ion to Stay or Abate Effectiveness of [the Trial Court’s] Order Voiding Another Court’s [Turnover] Receiver’s Irrevocable Proxy ” with this Court, requesting that the Court “abate or stay the
effectiveness” of the trial court’s order granting the partial su mmary judgment of real parties in interest pending our consideration of the mandamus petition.

Relators ’ motion for emergency relief to stay or abate the trial court’s February 22, 2022 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of real parties in interest is deni ed

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Apri l Farris

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 5, 2022
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

January 22, 2010 

0114 

Order 

 

January 22, 2010 

139907 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139907 

 COA: 286915 

Wayne CC: 08-007633-FH 

SHAWN ADAMS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings not 

inconsistent with this order. When reviewing courts assess a magistrate’s conclusion that 

probable cause to search existed, courts are to consider the underlying affidavit in a 

“common-sense and realistic manner.” People v Russo, 439 Mich 583, 604 (1992), 

Reviewing courts must also pay deference to a magistrate’s determination that probable 

cause existed. This deference “requires the reviewing court to ask only whether a 

reasonably cautious person could have concluded that there was a ‘substantial basis’ for 

the finding of probable cause.” Id. at 603, quoting Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 236 

(1983). Here the affidavit by Officer DeKiere provided the magistrate with more-thanadequate grounds to conclude there was a “fair probability” that contraband and 

additional evidence of a crime would be found at the defendant’s residence. Id. at 604. 

The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise. 

 Moreover, the Court of Appeals further erred by relying on United States v Leon, 

468 US 897 (1984), to rule that the good-faith exception to an improperly issued search 

warrant could not apply in this case because the police officer who supplied the 

underlying affidavit for the search warrant also executed the warrant. Regardless of 

whether there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant of the 

defendant’s premises in this case, there is no evidence that the officer provided an 

affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render his subsequent official belief 

in its existence entirely unreasonable. Id. at 919-921. The evidence shows that the 

officer executed the warrant with a good-faith belief that it was properly issued.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Quotation from Daniel Webster Plaque Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
### R eg u la tory Ev a l u a tion

Docket No.



## AA- **~t5=-0~(..t,** D i rectorate Iden tifi er: .,AfJ 

## c;;?o/ 

## 5



# -J~-- c:?3-



# /1~ Add th e 1rork hours. pans cost. and lllllnher 

### (?l l 1 S. regis Tered produc ts To the tahl e 

### htdOir. Wh e n .mu are finished. click Oil the
.. Update Fieh/.\ · · · hwton to outomatica//yfi/1 in th e totals. 

### Update Fie l ds 

# ' I

Es tim a ted Costs: Action Costs per Pr od uc t (e.g., aircraft, eng ine , (e.g
. , Inspection , prop e ll e r , appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cos t Total Cos ts Number of Total Cost rep laceme nt) (inc lude cost ( labor + 

## u .s. for U.S
. F lee t D o not includ e onco ndition cos T s h e re access , test in g, ( @ $85/h parts) R eg i s t e r e d and close-up) our) Pr o du c t s Replacement 

### I 

### 1 1 .00 

### 86

T h e known nu mber of products in comp l iance: 

### 1\ 

### umber T ota l Cos t s o f co m p li a n ce fo r U .S. fleet: $8 , 256 Cos t s covered under war r anty (if kn o wn)

**WatTant~** O n -Co n d i ti o n Costs:



# ~ Action Wor k- hou r s Lab o r cos t Parts C ost Cos t per Product (e.g., Insp ec ti o n , (i nc lud e access, ( @$ 8 5/ ho ur ) t es t ing , and closerep lacement) up) In s pection



### 7

### Special con s id e rations for Economic A nal ys is (U se thisfield to e xplain anythin g in th e Estimated Costs tabl e that was assum e d o r might not b e o bvious. This fi e ld can also be used to e xplain warrant y

**co st5** 

**:** 

### Exec uti ve Order 12866 : 

### Cou ld the AD be considered a " s i gn ifi ca nt regul atory action " ? @) YES* 0 NO 181 *Explanati o n : DOT Re g ul a t ory Policies a nd Procedures: 

### Is th e AD s i g nifi can t ? 

## @) YES* 0 NO 181 *Exp lan ation: Reg ulato ry F l ex ibili ty Act: 

### Will the AD have a sign i ficant eco no mic impact on a substan tial nu mb e r of sma ll e ntiti e s ? Expla in for ei ther a Y es o r No answer. 

## (9 YES 0 NO 181 Explanation: Intrasta t e Av iat ion in Alaska: 

### T hi s AD could affect int r astate aviation in Ala s k a . I s it approp riate to include spec ifi c r eq uirements for aircraft ope rated in A l aska whe re aviatio n might be the o nly mode of transportat i on? 

# 8 YES* 0 NO 181 * E xp l anat io n:

8
28806

#### State v. Tangelder

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of CDI Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 respect,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



By:

/s/    ROGER H. BALLOURoger H. Ballou President and Chief Executive Officer




Dated: March 11, 2009



By:

/s/    MARK A. KERSCHNERMark A. Kerschner Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Dated: March 11, 2009



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



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 this Quarterly Report of Goodys Family Clothing, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward
R. Carlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Edward R. Carlin Edward R. Carlin
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
August 19, 2004 22
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

202) 11-1-35 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 202 of 276 
P.2 

*•-.-•-

II-I-35 

AUG 0 3 1989 

APARTMENT OF NAT.,;<*-./*.L 

H'> J:OZS 

Q-W.G r .-ALES 'J:'e<:;oi 

August 1, 1989 

Mr. Charles E. Smith, Administrator 

Air Programs Environmental Protection 

Detroit Edison Company 

2000 Second Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

. H \> W H 

•VV.\ 

N\',v 

"Hi? : 

'•-. ' ".-7 " 

v.- U 

, I 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

This is to follow-up our November 15, 1988, meeting with EPA Region V and the 

telephone conversations we have had, since then, all of which concern Permit to 

Install No. 180-72A for the addition of natural gas burning capability to the 

Greenwood Power Plant. 

The most recent correspondence we have received concerning the application is 

the letter of May 8, 1S88, from D. Clay to W. McCarthy. That letter opens the 

possibilities of discussing the applicability of prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) regulations with EPA headquarters. Our subsequent 

conversations indicate that you are pursuing that option. 

In the meantime, the permit application remains inactive, with potential to 

remain inactive until EFA and WEP Company resolve their differences. We 

recognize the importance of the outcome of the issues raised by the proposed 

modification of the Greenwood plant and your interest in resolving those issues 

expeditiously. Given the importance of the issues involved, and the lack of 

progress towards resolution of those issues, we request one of the following 

three actions be taken: 

1) Withdrawal of the current permit application with the intent of 

re-application after resolution of the PSD issues . 

2) Arrange for a meeting with the EPA, including date, location, and 

personnel to attend, to discuss the PSD issues. 

3) Provide the necessary information to complete the application as 

required by the PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) based on the 

determination made by USEPA, Region V. 
P.3 

Mr. Charles E. Smith 

Page 2 

August I, 1989 

Other options which you propose will be considered, with the intent of pursuing 

one of them to complete the current application without additional undue 

delays. Please contact me if you wish to discuss any of the above or if none 

of the above options are acceptable to you. 

Sincerely, 

,. ,C,y>- A -->.-..--

Christopher J. Stock, Engineer 

Southeast Permit Unit 

Air-Quality Division 

517-373-7077 

CJS:peu 

cc: Mr. Tom Maki 

Mr. Robert Miller
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Richard Atwell, Appellant.

County Court, Saratoga County,

June 11, 1959.

*426
      *Carroll, Amyot & Doling (J. Raymond Amyot*of counsel), for appellant.

*Carleton J. King, District Attorney,*for respondent.

Richard J. Sherman, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for petit larceny on December 18, 1931. Previously, the defendant had been charged with grand larceny and on the aforesaid date, he pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of petit larceny on the aforesaid date before the Honorable Blain Packer, a Justice of the Peace in and for the Town of Providence. Upon defendant’s plea of guilty, defendant was sentenced to serve a term of 40 days in the Saratoga County jail. On December 24, .1931, defendant was released in the custody of his attorney, an appropriate affidavit having been filed on appeal. The only records available are the affidavits on appeal with the following notation thereon:

> *“*The within appeal is hereby allowed and defendants (two) are released in the custody of their attorney.

> *‘ ‘*Dated December 24, 1931

> Lawrence B. McKelvey,

> Saratoga County Judge. ’ ’

It is not known whether or not the papers on appeal were served on the Justice. There is no certificate of conviction on file, nor is there any record of a return by the Justice. *No*motion was made, so far as the record appears, to compel the Justice to file a return, nor was the appeal ever brought to argument.

There apparently was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Justice as well as the defendant. In view of the circumstances and where the conduct of the defendant has been exemplary over the intervening years, the appeal should be granted and the judgment of conviction vacated.

Submit order accordingly.
Exhibit 10.15


 


SECURITY AGREEMENT JOINDER


 


THIS SECURITY AGREEMENT JOINDER dated as
of May 16, 2017 (this “Agreement”) is entered into by MARCorp Signal, LLC (the “Additional Purchaser”)
and Summit Semiconductor, LLC (the “Company”), pursuant to the Security Agreement dated as of November 30, 2016
(as amended, amended and restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Security Agreement”),
among the Company and the Purchasers from time to time party thereto. Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Security Agreement.


 


RECITALS:


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Additional Purchaser have entered into that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of the date hereof (the “Purchase
Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the Purchase
Agreement requires the Additional Purchaser to become a party to the Security Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Additional
Purchaser has agreed to execute and deliver this Agreement in order to become a party to the Security Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED:


 


Section 1.Security Agreement.
By executing and delivering this Agreement, the Additional Purchaser hereby becomes a party to the Security Agreement as a Purchaser
thereunder with the same force and effect as if originally named therein as a Purchaser and, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, hereby expressly assumes all obligations and liabilities of a Purchaser thereunder.


 


Section 2Grant of Security Interest.
To secure the prompt payment in full when due (whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise) and performance of the
Secured Obligations, the Company hereby pledges and grants to the Additional Purchaser, a continuing security interest in all of
the Company’s right, title and interest in and to the Collateral, whether now owned or hereafter acquired by the Company
and whether now existing or hereafter coming into existence, which shall remain in effect until indefeasible payment and performance
in full of all of the Secured Obligations.


 


Section 3.Governing Law. All
questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Joinder shall be governed by and construed
and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law
thereof.


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




     

     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
caused this Security Agreement Joinder to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first above written.


 


	 	SUMMIT SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name: Brett Moyer
	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	MARCORP SIGNAL, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name: 
	 	 	Title: 


 


[Signature Page to Security Agreement Joinder]
|                                          |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                          |  |  |
| Subsidiaries of the Company:             |
| Names of Subsidiary(1)                   |   | Place ofIncorporation |
| Flagg Bros. of Puerto Rico, Inc.         |   | Delaware |
| Genesco Brands, LLC                      |   | Delaware |
| GVI, Inc.                                |   | Delaware |
| Hat World Corporation                    |   | Delaware |
| GCO Canada Inc.                          |   | CanadaMinnesota |
| Hat World, Inc.                          |   | Minnesota |
| Hat World Services Co., Inc.             |   | Delaware |
| Keuka Footwear, Inc.                     |   | Delaware |
| SIOPA Sports of America, LLC (50% owned) |   | Delaware |
| Genesco (UK) Limited                     |   | United Kingdom |
| Lids Retail Limited                      |   | United Kingdom |
| Schuh Group Limited                      |   | United Kingdom |
| Schuh (Holdings) Limited                 |   | United Kingdom |
| Schuh Limited                            |   | United Kingdom |
| Schuh (ROI) Limited                      |   | Republic of Ireland |
| Genesco GP, LLC                          |   | United Kingdom |
| Genesco Scot LP                          |   | United Kingdom |
| Genesco (Jersey) Limited                 |   | Jersey |
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 American HomePatient, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
F. Furlong, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operations
            of the Company.

This Certification is executed as of May 4, 2006.

                                  /s/ Joseph F. Furlong, III
                                  ----------------------------
                                  Joseph F. Furlong, III
                                  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.
# EUR-Lex - 21994D1231(15) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 21994D1231(15)

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 44/94 of 15 December 1994 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 372 , 31/12/1994 P. 0020 - 0020 *

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 44/94

of 15 December 1994

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement`, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/94 of 21 March 1994 amending Protocol 47 and certain Annexes to the EEA Agreement ();

Whereas Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft () is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following new chapter shall be added to Annex II to the Agreement:

'XXXL. RECREATIONAL CRAFT

ACTS REFERRED TO

1.394 L 0025: Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (OJ No L 164, 30. 6. 1994, p. 15).`

Article 2

The texts of Directive 94/25/EC in the Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 February 1995, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 15 December 1994.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

H. HAFSTEIN

() OJ No L 160, 28. 6. 1994, p. 1.

() OJ No L 164, 30. 6. 1994, p. 15.
1

Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:24 PM

To: 'gene@staeppen.com'

Subject: Request for Information - FAA-2015-5144

Dear Mr. Gladden: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and reviewed your request for an exemption under 

Section 333, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5144. Upon initial review, it was determined that more 

information was needed in order to move forward with your request. This information is necessary for 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your request. 

 Please clarify the power source (i.e. battery/gas/propane-powered) for the aircraft below. The 

list represents an initial assessment of the aircraft that the FAA is unable to move forward with.

1. Leica Dragon 50 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. 

Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information 

(and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via 

e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must 

receive the information described above by January 27, 2016. If we do not receive the information, 

we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

Regards, 

Dan Ngo 

Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division 

Federal Aviation Administration