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

August 6, 2009 

d0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138708 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138708 

 COA: 282936 

Wayne CC: 05-007345-FC 

DORAILONTIE MARTEL STRAWTHER, 

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 questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 268

To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid grass carp

certification inspections, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. BUMPERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid

grass carp certification inspections, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF FEES FOR TRIPLOID GRASS

4 CARP CERTIFICATION INSPECTIONS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, act6 ing through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service

7 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Director’’), may charge

8 reasonable fees for expenses to the Federal Government

9 for triploid grass carp certification inspections requested

10 by a person who owns or operates an aquaculture facility.
2

•S 268 IS

1 (b) AVAILABILITY.—All fees collected under sub2 section (a) shall be available to the Director until ex3 pended, without further appropriations.

4 (c) USE.—The Director shall use all fees collected

5 under subsection (a) to carry out the activities referred

6 to in subsection (a).

Æ
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2154

To provide equitable treatment for pharmaceutical patents on certain pipeline

drugs in order to encourage continued development of new drugs, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. HEFLIN, and Mr. SANTORUM)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide equitable treatment for pharmaceutical patents

on certain pipeline drugs in order to encourage continued

development of new drugs, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pharmaceutical Equity

5 Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PATENTS RELATING TO CERTAIN

7 PIPELINE DRUGS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The term of any patent in force

9 on September 24, 1984, and on the effective date of this
2

S 2154 IS

1 Act, that claims a drug product, a method of using a drug

2 product, or a method of manufacturing a drug product,

3 shall be extended pursuant to subsection (b) from the expi4 ration date determined pursuant to section 154 of title 35,

5 United States Code, if:

6 (1) an exemption described in section

7 156(g)(1)(B)(i) or section 156(g)(4)(B)(i) of title

8 35, United States Code, became effective for the

9 drug product before September 24, 1984;

10 (2) the regulatory review period set forth in sec11 tion 156(g)(1)(B) or section 156(g)(4)(B) of title

12 35, United States Code, for the drug product, ex13 ceeded 120 months; and

14 (3) the regulatory review period described in

15 section 156(g)(1)(B)(ii) or section 156(g)(4)(B)(ii)

16 of title 35, United States Code, for the drug prod17 uct, exceeded 60 months.

18 (b) TERM.—The term of any patent described in sub19 section (a) shall be extended by a period of two years.

20 (c) INFRINGEMENT.—During any extension granted

21 pursuant to subsection (b), the rights in the patent so ex22 tended shall be determined in accordance with section

23 156(b) of title 35, United States Code.
3

S 2154 IS

1 (d) DEFINITION.—For the purpose of the Act, the

2 term ‘‘drug product’’ shall be defined in accordance with

3 section 156(f)(2) of title 35, United States Code.

4 (e) NOTIFICATION.—No later than 90 days after the

5 date of enactment of this Act, the patentee of a patent

6 extended pursuant to subsection (b) shall notify the Com7 missioner of Patents and Trademarks of the number of

8 any patent extended pursuant to subsection (b). On re9 ceipt of this notice, the Commissioner shall confirm the

10 patent extension by placing a notice thereof in the official

11 file of the patent, and publishing an appropriate notice

12 of this extension in the Official Gazette of the Patent and

13 Trademark Office.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6160

CARL MICHAEL ALLSBROOK, Petitioner - Appellant,
versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-185-2) Submitted: April 20, 2000 Decided: May 11, 2000 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Carl Michael Allsbrook, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 21, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 31, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2 PER CURIAM: Carl Michael Allsbrook seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Allsbrook v. Angelone , No. CA-99-185-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2000). * We note that, although the magistrate judge’s report did not expressly address Allsbrook’s claim that he was denied the right to appeal the Parole Board’s decision, this claim lacks merit. See Virginia Parole Bd. v. Wilkins , 498 S.E.2d 695, 696 (Va. 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
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 on Form 10-K of Boston Communications Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, E.Y. Snowden, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Karen A. Walker, Vice President, Finance and Administration
and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



|                    |  |                                                                                       
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 9, 2004 |  | /s/ E. Y. Snowden                                                                     
|                    |  | E.Y. Snowden                                                                          
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                                 
|                    | 
|Date: March 9, 2004 |  | /s/ Karen A. Walker                                                                   
|                    |  | Karen A. Walker Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Boston Communications Group, Inc., and will be retained by Boston Communications Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOSEPH LOUIS HALL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cr - 00028

- HEH

- 1 )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Joseph Louis Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Louis Hall appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release . We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion

. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied , 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021)

. Acco rdingly, we affirm the district
court’s order . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.5



Statement



Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of WTA Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  | WTA INC.
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 7, 2003 |  |  |  |         
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |  |         
|                        |  |  |  | Name:   
|                        |  |  |  |         
|                        |  |  |  |         



This certification accompanies this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Frank Litvack M.D., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Conor Medsystems, 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) and 15d-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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 14, 2005



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ FRANK LITVACK, M.D.                                                               
|Frank Litvack, M.D. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No.'s  333-61487 and  333-134831)  of Norwood  Financial
Corp.  of our report  dated  February  26,  2007,  relating to the  consolidated
financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders,  which
is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                          /s/ Beard Miller Company LLP

Beard Miller Company LLP
Reading, Pennsylvania
March 21, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Albert HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4586.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2003.

Decided Jan. 21, 2003.

Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*139Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Randolph Albert Henderson appeals the district court’s judgment order sentencing him to 169 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find this appeal foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Bay-erle,*898 F.2d 28 (4th Cir.1990). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 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.*
#### Guthrie MAY et al., Appellants, v. John J. MOHR, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 24, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1955.

*145Henry J. Burt, Jr., Louisville, for appellants.

Richard P. Watts, Louisville, for appel-lee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This action seeks specific performance of an oral agreement allegedly.made by appel-lee to extend an option held by appellant to purchase a tract of appellee’s realty. The court sustained appellee’s motion1 for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint because the agreement upon which appellant relies was an oral agreement for the conveyance of real estate and was within the' Statute of Frauds. KRS 371.010(6).

 The reason assigned by the court for dismissing the action was sufficient. Rhorer v. Rhorer’s Ex’r, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 801; Bitzer v. Moock’s Ex’r and Trustee, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 877; Head v. Schwartz’ Ex’r, 304 Ky. 798, 202 S.W.2d 623. In addition, we have read the depositions taken on discovery which were filed in support of the motion for summary judgment and find that the deposition of the appellánt, Guthrie May, and the deposition of his witness, C. E. Day, fail to show the existence of the oral agreement, upon which the allegations of the complaint were based.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 31

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Joel Gardner, CEO and CFO, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Megola, Inc.;

      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. I am 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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, 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 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, 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 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:  March 22, 2005

                              /s/ JOEL GARDNER
                              ---------------------------
                                  Joel Gardner
                                  CEO and CFO
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

             REPORT ON SCHEDULE AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Farallon Communications, Inc. and subsidiary:


The audits referred to in our report dated November 5, 1996, included the
related financial statement schedule as of September 30, 1996, and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1996, included in the
annual report on Form 10-K of Farallon Communications, Inc. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
05845) on Form S-8 of Farallon Communications, Inc. and subsidiary of our report
dated November 5, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Farallon
Communications, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 1995 and 1996, and the
related consolidated statement of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1996, and
related schedule, which report appears in the September 30, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of Farallon Communications, Inc.


                                    /S/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                    -------------------------
 
                                    KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

San Francisco, California
December 17, 1996

                                      47