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

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen,
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.

December 9, 2015

t1202 

# Order

Clerk December 9, 2015

150815

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150815 COA: 324071 Oakland CC: 2013

- 247924

- FH TIMOTHY WADE HORTON, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the defendant’s unconditional no contest plea waived his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on trial

counsel’s failure to make a motion to dismiss for a 1 80

- day rule violation, MCL 780.131 and 780.133, in light of People v Lown , 488 Mich 242, 267

- 270 (2011), or for constitutional speedy trial violations; (2) whether the defendant’s unconditional no contest plea waived his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for trial counsel’s failure to inform the defendant that an unconditional no contest plea would waive his right to appeal on the basis of a 180

- day rule violation or constitutional speedy trial violations; and (3) whether trial counsel’s fail ure to inform the defendant that his unconditional no contest plea would waive his right to appeal on the basis of a 180

- day rule violation and constitutional speedy trial violation made defendant’s plea unknowing and involuntary. We further ORDER the Oak land Circuit Court, in accordance with

Administrative Order 2003

- 03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint the State Appellate Defender Office to represent the defendant in this Court.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association 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 c uriae.
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2157 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To facilitate a land exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National Forest, 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, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2157 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES FOR INYO NATIONAL FOREST 

2 LAND EXCHANGE. 

3 (a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT LANDS OUTSIDE

4 BOUNDARIES OF INYO NATIONAL FOREST.—In any land 

5 exchange involving the conveyance of certain National 

6 Forest System land located within the boundaries of Inyo 

7 National Forest in California, as shown on the map titled 

8 ‘‘Federal Parcel’’ and dated June 2011, the Secretary of 

9 Agriculture may accept for acquisition in the exchange 

10 certain non-Federal lands in California lying outside the 

11 boundaries of Inyo National Forest, as shown on the maps 

12 titled ‘‘DWP Parcel – Interagency Visitor Center Parcel’’ 

13 and ‘‘DWP Parcel – Town of Bishop Parcel’’ and dated 

14 June 2011, if the Secretary determines that acquisition 

15 of the non-Federal lands is desirable for National Forest 

16 System purposes. 

17 (b) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT; USE.—In an ex18 change described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Agri19 culture may accept a cash equalization payment in excess 

20 of 25 percent. Any such cash equalization payment shall 

21 be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the 

22 United States established by Public Law 90–171 (com23 monly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a) and shall 

24 be made available to the Secretary for the acquisition of 

25 land for addition to the National Forest System. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2157 RFS 

1 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec2 tion shall be construed to grant the Secretary of Agri3 culture new land exchange authority. This section modifies 

4 the use of land exchange authorities already available to 

5 the Secretary as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2012. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**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 Quarterly Report of eRoomSystem Technologies, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        David
        A. Gestetner, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), President
        and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
        of the
        Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.
   By:
                  /s/ David A. Gestetner
              
              President,
                  Chief Executive Officer andChief
                  Financial Officer
              
              November
                  14, 2006David
                  A. Gestetner
              
              (Principal
                  Executive Officer and Principal
                Financial
                  and Accounting Officer )
    -26-
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF CEO 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 Victoria Industries, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Albert
      Abdoulline, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
      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 his knowledge, that:





(1)       
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
      Company.


By:
                    /S/ Albert AbdoullineAlbert
                    AbdoullinePresident,
                    CEODate:
 December
                  19, 2007
EXHIBIT 31.1

RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
           (Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
                             15 U.S.C. Section 78m)

I, J. Philip Hester, Sr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Chestatee
Bancshares, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Chestatee Bancshares,
Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006.

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 annual 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 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 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 as of the end of the period covered by this report based
     upon such evaluation; and

          c. disclosed in this report any changes in our internal control over
     financial reporting that occurred during the most recent fiscal quarter
     that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
     our internal controls over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the our
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

          a. all significant deficiencies 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 our internal control over
     financial reporting.


Date: November 14, 2006            By: /s/ J. Philip Hester, Sr.
      -----------------                ----------------------------------------
                                       J. Philip Hester, Sr., President and CEO
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)



<PAGE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of AEGIS INDUSTRIES, INC. (the
Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I,
Paul Evancoe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                       | /s/
      Paul Evancoe                         
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: January 29, 2007 |                                                
|                       | Paul Evancoe                                   
|                       | President and CEO - Principal Executive Officer

---
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
  (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: May 4, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Alain CouderAlain CouderPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Respondent, v Myrna Heilbrun, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about September 29, 1989, which denied respondent Myrna Heilbrun’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, as receiver for the Franklin National Bank, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225, alleging that a certain transfer of funds from respondent Joseph Heilbrun to his wife, respondent Myrna Heilbrun, was made with an intent to defraud Joseph Heilbrun’s creditors, without consideration, rendering Joseph Heilbrun insolvent. Petitioner seeks a personal judgment against Myrna Heilbrun in the amount of its judgment against Joseph Heilbrun, plus interest and attorneys’ fees.

Respondent contends that the petition is barred by virtue of the fact that the transferred funds were dissipated by the time this proceeding was commenced. Petitioner does not dispute that the funds were spent, in part in satisfaction of other debts owed by Joseph Heilbrun. We find respondent’s position to be unpersuasive. A personal judgment against the transferee of a fraudulent conveyance may be obtained where the transferee has made it impossible to return the property to the creditor by, for example, disposing of wrongfully conveyed property or depreciating it *(Marine Midland Bank v Murkoff,*120 AD2d 122, 133, *appeal dismissed*69 NY2d 875). A trial is *295required to determine the extent of respondent’s liability, if any. Concur—Sullivan, J. R, Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ZENOBIA C. ZIEGLER, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TR EASURY, Respondent.

______________________

2013

- 3099

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC0752110645 -I- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R

Zenobia C. Ziegler moves unopposed for reinstatement of this appeal.

T his appeal was dismissed for failure to file the joint appendix. Ziegler has now submitted the joint appendix.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 13-3099 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2014ZIEGLER v. TREASURY 2

(1) The motion to reinstate is granted. The dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and appeal No.

2013

- 3099 is reinstated.

(2) The joint appendix submitted on January 8 , 201 4

, as Exhibit 1 to the motion for reinstatement may be submitted by counsel through CM/ECF within 14 days of
the date of this order

. *

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

s25

* The court notes that the join t appendix should co ntain the official caption designating the Department of Treasury as the respondent. Case: 13-3099 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2014
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In
connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report) by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the Registrant), I,
Liankuan Yang, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify 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, and2.
The information
  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
  financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.  /s/ Liankuan
  YangName: Liankuan YangTitle: Chief
  Executive Officer Dated:
February 17, 2009 A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### Lettie EVANS et al., Appellants, v. George SOSTARICH et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 19, 1954.

W. A. Armstrong, Louisville, for appellants.

Alex Berman, Louisville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Chancery Branch, Second Division, Stuart E. Lampe, Judge, adjudging appellees the owners of certain real estate of the value of $750 under the terms of a written agreement which is construed by the judgment.

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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1952 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the deadline for filing 

a claim seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued 

by a Federal agency for a highway or public transportation capital 

project, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2011 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, 

and Mr. WESTMORELAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the deadline for filing a claim seeking judicial review of a permit, 

license, or approval issued by a Federal agency for a 

highway or public transportation capital project, 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, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1952 IH

1 SECTION 1. DEADLINE FOR CLAIMS RELATING TO HIGH2 WAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL 

3 PROJECTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 139(l) of title 23, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘180 days’’ in each 

6 of paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ‘‘90 days’’. 

7 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub8 section (a) shall apply to claims arising after the date of 

9 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| | Exhibit 15
| | ----------



September 15, 2003



Stockholders and Board of Directors

Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in

(i) Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-73803), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen
Corporation Employee Savings and Retirement Plan,

(ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-50841) and Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59602), each of which relate to the
Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

(iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-59101), which relates to the Voluntary Investment Plan of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation
(Crystal Brands Division),

(iv) Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-72959), Post Effective Amendment No. 6 to Registration
Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-64564), and Post Effective Amendment No. 13 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 2-47910), each of which relate
to the 1973 Employee's Stock Option Plan of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation,

(v) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-38698), Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-24057) and
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-60793), each of which relate to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1987 Stock Option Plan,

(vi) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-29765), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan

(vii) Registration Statement (Form S-4, No. 333-57203), which relates to the 9.5% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008,

(viii) Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-41068), which relates to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan,

(ix) Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-105218), which relates to the issuance of stock of Phillips-Van Heusen to the selling
stockholders of Calvin Klein, Inc. and certain related companies, and

(x) Registration Statement (Form S-4, No. 333-108329), which relates to the 8 1/8% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2013

of our reports dated August 20, 2003 and May 21, 2003, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of
Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the thirteen week periods ended August 3, 2003 and May 4, 2003.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not a part of the registration statements or post-effective
amendments prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

| | ERNST & YOUNG LLP
| | -----------------

New York, New York
#### Fluor Cascade, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Case Heavy Hauling, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Niagara Transformer Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant Niagara Transformer Corp. contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a conversation between Larry Triana and Mary Jane Gangloff, which was introduced by codefendant Case Heavy Hauling, Inc. Triana was under contract with Case to transport plaintiff’s transformer from Niagara’s property to plaintiff’s premises. The transformer was damaged during the course of its transportation by Triana. In its case-in-chief, Case introduced into evidence the transcript of a telephone conversation wherein Triana described how the accident occurred and the conduct of Niagara’s employees in loading the transformer onto his truck. His statements support Case’s contentions that Triana was not negligent in transporting the transformer, that defendant Niagara assumed the responsibility for the loading of the transformer, and that Niagara negligently loaded it. That testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Since *879Triana was not a party to the action, his testimony cannot constitute an admission against his interest. Additionally, that evidence does not constitute an admission against his employer, Case. It was not plaintiff which placed those statements into evidence in support of its cause of action against Case but, rather, Case which seeks to use its own agent’s statements in its favor. Thus, the statements are consistent with, rather than adverse to, Case’s posture at trial. The statements, therefore, do not fall within the admissions exception to the hearsay rule because "[a]n admission is an act or declaration of a party, or of his representative or predecessor in interest, which constitutes evidence against the party at trial.” (Richardson, Evidence § 209 [Prince 10th ed].) It was therefore error for the trial court to admit Triana’s hearsay statements. Consequently, a new trial must be granted.

Additionally, the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that Niagara assumed the responsibility for loading the transformer and that Case was not negligent in transporting the transformer. That instruction, in effect, directed a verdict against Niagara and in favor of Case. Since there was conflicting evidence with respect to the roles played by Niagara’s employees and Triana in loading the transformer, that issue should have been presented to the jury for its determination.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—negligence.) Present— Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.