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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 7, 2018

s1031

Order 

Clerk

November 7, 2018

157918

SC: 157918

In re PILAND, Minors. COA: 340754

Ingham CC Family Division:

17-000591-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The petitioner shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing: (1) whether the respondents are entitled to a jury instruction based on 

MCL 722.634, which states: “A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious 

beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that 

reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian;” and (2) for purposes 

of this determination, the distinction, if any, between the terms “neglects” and “refuses” 

in MCL 712A.2(b)(1), where the family court’s jurisdiction is sought on the basis of the 

parent’s failure to obtain medical care for a child. In addition to the brief, the petitioner 

shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, 

citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 

7.312(B)(1). Respondents and the lawyer-guardian ad litem shall file supplemental briefs 

within 21 days of being served with the petitioner’s brief. The respondents shall also 

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix 

filed by the petitioner. A reply, if any, must be filed by the petitioner within 14 days of 

being served with the briefs of the respondents and the lawyer-guardian ad litem. The 

parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Children’s Law and Family Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1811 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for employment and 

reemployment rights for certain individuals ordered to full-time National 

Guard duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2011 

Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. HARPER, and 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for employment and reemployment rights for certain individuals 

ordered to full-time National Guard duty. 

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 ‘‘National Guard Em5 ployment Protection Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOLLOWING CERTAIN NA7 TIONAL GUARD DUTY. 

8 (a) REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS.—Section 4312(c)(4) of 

9 title 38, United States Code, is amended— 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1811 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

2 (D); 

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub4 paragraph (E) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(F) ordered to full-time National Guard 

8 duty under the provisions of section 502(f) of 

9 title 32 when the period of duty is expressly 

10 designated in writing by the Secretary of De11 fense as covered by this subparagraph.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subparagraph (F) of section 

13 4312(c)(4) of title 38, United States Code, as added by 

14 subsection (a), shall apply with respect to an individual 

15 ordered to full-time National Guard duty under section 

16 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, on or after Sep17 tember 11, 2001, and shall entitle such individual to rights 

18 and benefits under chapter 43 of title 38 of such Code 

19 on or after that date. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000727634
<NAME>                        Communication Intelligence Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U. S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        2,374
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,588
<ALLOWANCES>                    (13)
<INVENTORY>                      81
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              4,205
<PP&E>                        1,794
<DEPRECIATION>               (1,450)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,276
<BONDS>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                        822
<OTHER-SE>                    1,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,963
<SALES>                       3,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              6,518
<CGS>                         2,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              3,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 38
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               53
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (1,740)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (1,740)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                 (1,740)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.02)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.15

 

(English Translation)

 

Supplementary Agreement III to the Domain Name License Agreement

 

This Supplementary Agreement is made and entered into by and between the following two parties in Shanghai, China on August 14, 2018:

 

Licensor:                      51net.com Inc., which is a company organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands with its registered office at c/c Vistra Corporate Services Centre, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands. The Licensor has legally obtained and owns the domain name under this Agreement.

 

Licensee:                       Qianjin Network Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., which is a company duly registered, organized and validly existing under PRC laws.

 

Whereas:

 

1.                  The Domain Name License Agreement entered into by both parties on August 15, 2000 has a term of two years.

 

2.                  Under the Supplementary Agreement to the Domain Name License Agreement entered into by both parties on August 15, 2002, the term was extended until August 14, 2010.

 

3.                  Under the Supplementary Agreement II to the Domain Name License Agreement entered into by both parties on August 15, 2010, the term was extended until August 14, 2018.

 

Through negotiation, both parties agree to enter into the following supplementary agreement:

 

a.              Under provision 9.2 of the original Domain Name License Agreement, both parties agree on the basis of provision 3 of this Supplementary Agreement to extend the term for another ten years until August 14, 2028.

 

b.              All other provisions of the original Domain Name License Agreement are unchanged.

 

c.               This Supplementary Agreement is an integral part of the original Domain Name License Agreement and has the same legal effect. This Agreement is effective upon receipt of the signature and seal of the authorized representatives.

 

Licensor: 51net.com Inc.

 

	
Signature of Authorized Representative:   For and on behalf of 51net.com Inc.:
    	
/s/ Rick Yan
    


Name/Position:

 

Party B: Qianjin Network Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

 

[Company Seal of Qianjin Network Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.]

 

Signature of Authorized Representative:

Name/Position:
#### Luther Lee JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27916.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1956.

Chappell & Chappell, Lubbock, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The unlawful possession of beer, whisky, wine, and gin for the purpose of sale in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things,
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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer'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
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 10, 2006      /s/ Linda L. Perry
                        ________________________________________________
                        Linda L. Perry, Principal Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INFORMEDICS, INC. INCORPORATED
INTO ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C> 

<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                       534,260
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                872,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                  64,623
<INVENTORY>                                   74,272<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,862,521
<PP&E>                                       897,294
<DEPRECIATION>                               581,259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3,137,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,608,428
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      26,422
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,459,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3,137,944
<SALES>                                    1,908,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           5,151,547
<CGS>                                        734,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3,492,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,939,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (762,286)<F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,177,490)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,177,490)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.45)
<FN>
<F1> See Note 2 to Notes to Financial Statements
<F2> See Note 7 to Notes to Financial Statements
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3062

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Matthew Andrew Key, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 15, 2006 Filed: March 31, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Matthew Andrew Key pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He received a sentence of 262 months and brought a timely appeal of his sentence. Following oral argument, Key filed a motion for remand, alleging that th e trial court committed plain error when it found him to be a career offender for purposes of United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. In response, th e government conceded that one of the convictions used to qualify Key as a car eer offender, his 1997 Missouri conviction-2- for Trafficking Drugs, Second Degree, does not satisfy the requirements of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). Therefore, Key does not have “at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a contro lled substance offense,” and Key does not qualify as a career offender for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Accordingly, we vacate Key’s sent ence and remand for resentencing.

______________________________
#### Ed LEESON, Appellant, v. BRITT & COLLINS, a Partnership Composed of Glenn Britt and J. H. Collins, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 2, 1958.

Goad & Secrest, N. Goebel Goad, Scotts-ville, Paul R. Huddleston, Bowling Green, for appellant.

Douglas Keen, Scottsville, Bell, Orr *&*Reynolds, Charles H. Reynolds, Bowling Green, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming the judgment for $1,000 in this case because we think there was sufficient evidence to' submit to the jury the question 'of a breach of an oral drilling contract and to sustain the jury’s award.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7551

DAWN D. SUTTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN FANELLO,

Warden; KATHY HALH (or Halk), Correctional

Officer; KENNETH P. MORITSUGU, Health Services

Director; ROLAND E. WILLIAMS, Hospital Service

Administrator; BERNORD PARINA, Clinical

Director of Health Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Robert L. Buchanan, Jr., Magistrate

Judge. (CA-95-1516-9-0JC)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dawn D. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal from a magistrate judge's report and

recommendation to deny his motions for temporary restraining orders

or preliminary injunctions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the magistrate judge's report is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The report here

appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 12, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11234

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN R. HASSELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-312-ALL-G 

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin R. Hassell appeals from his criminal contempt

conviction and sentence imposed in a bench proceeding for

violating the district court’s order not to interfere in a tax

sale of his property. Hassell argues that the district court

retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights,

lacked subject matter jurisdiction, conspired with a Department

of Justice attorney, and denied him a jury trial. The Government

moves to dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
No. 04-11234

-2-

A conviction for criminal contempt is authorized under 18

U.S.C. § 401(3) upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of 1) a

reasonably specific order; 2) violation of the order; and 3) the

willful intent to violate the order. United States v. Landerman,

109 F.3d 1053, 1068 (5th Cir.), modified in part on other

grounds, 116 F.3d 119 (5th Cir. 1997). A criminal contempt need

not be charged by indictment. See United States v. Nunn, 622

F.2d 802, 803-04 (5th Cir. 1980); FED. R. CRIM. P. 42(a). 

Further, a jury is required only if the contempt action carries a

penalty of more than six months of imprisonment. See National

Maritime Union v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp., 737 F.2d 1395, 1400

(5th Cir. 1984).

We conclude that Hassell was given proper notice of the

contempt proceeding and that the district court’s finding of

guilt was not erroneous. Hassell’s appeal is without arguable

merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, the

Government’s motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIIBIT 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 Kodiak Energy Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (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:

         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.


Dated: October 25, 2005                      /s/ Mark Hlady
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Name: Mark Hlady
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated: October 25, 2005                      /s/ Marc Juliar
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Name: Marc Juliar
                                             Title: Chief Financial Officer






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 21

Q-MED, INC.

 

A DELAWARE CORPORATION

 

SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES

 

 

Heart Map, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 83% owned (dissolved in December 2005).

 

Interactive Heart Management Corp., a Delaware corporation, 100% owned.

 

HeartMasters LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, 50% owned indirectly (dissolved in December 2005).

 

QMedCare, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 100% owned.

 

Positive Directions, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 100% owned.

 

QMedCare Dakota, LLC, a South Dakota Corporation, 100% owned by QMedCare, Inc.

 

Lakeshore Captive Insurance Company, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation, 100% owned by QMedCare, Inc.

 

QMedCare of New Jersey, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, 100% owned.