alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130893 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130893 

 COA: 264816 

Oakland CC: 1994-135924-FC 

JASON R. GRAVES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1
<CURRENCY>        U.S. DOLLARS



<S>                                              <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                        632,028
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              642,968
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                651,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         270,174
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    15,000
<COMMON>                                      100,752
<OTHER-SE>                                    265,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  651,347
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              623,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (623,201)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (623,201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (623,201)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40651 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MANUEL ARELLANO-BERUMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-648

-------------------- February 17, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Juan Manuel Arellano-Beruman appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Arellano contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because his underlying deportation proceedings violated his right to due
process. Arellano concedes that the only issue raised in this appeal is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. BenitezVillafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 659-60 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 120No. 99-40651 -2- S. Ct. 838 (2000). The decision of the district court therefore is AFFIRMED.
#### CLINE v. WENGER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 18, 1953.

Stuard Wegener, Covington, for appellant.

John E. Shepard, Covington, for appel-lees.

COMBS, Justice.

The contestant, Elizabeth Cline, has appealed from a judgment entered on a jury’s verdict upholding the will of her brother, Jacob Wenger. She had charged that the signature on the will was a forgery.

It is urged for reversal of the judgment that the court erred in rejecting certain testimony and in refusing to permit the introduction of a photostat of specimens of the testator’s signature offered by the contestant.

The disposition made by the testator of his property is not an unnatural one. Preparation of the will by an attorney, now dead, whose reputation for integrity has not been attacked, was duly proved. Due execution of the will was proved by the three subscribers and by a fourth person who was present but did not sign the will as a witness. The integrity of these witnesses is not questioned.

The contestant testified that in her opinion the signature on the will is not that of her brother. The only other evidence of forgery is the testimony of a banker and a handwriting expert. These two witnesses also expressed the opinion that the signature on the will is not that of the testator. This testimony is far from convincing and creates no more than a suspicion. Certainly it is not sufficient, under the circumstances here shown, to overcome the positive testimony of the four unimpeached witnesses who testified that the will was signed by the testator in their presence.

It has been said that expert testimony is regarded by the law as the weakest kind of evidence. It is a species of hearsay testimony constituting an exception to the general rule forbidding the introduction of that character of testimony, because of the necessities of the *92case. But it is the tendency of this court, at least, to restrict the rule permitting its introduction and to minimize the weight accorded to it. Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Humphrey, 168 Ky. 611, 182 S.W. 854. Also see Pioneer Coal Co. v. Polly, 208 Ky. 548, 271 S.W. 592; Polley v. Cline’s Ex’r, 263 Ky. 659, 93 S.W.2d 363.

Even if ’the trial judge had permitted the introduction of all the evidence offered by contestant, including the proposed exhibit, he still would have been fully justified in directing a verdict for the proponents of the will. It follows that the contestant has not been prejudiced by any ruling of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2087 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2087

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic 
                  District, Accomack County, Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS.

    (a) Removal.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall execute such 
instruments as may be necessary to remove all deed restrictions 
described in subsection (b) relating to the parcel of land described in 
subsection (c).
    (b) Deed Restrictions.--The deed restrictions referred to in 
subsection (a) are those restrictions, including easements, exceptions, 
reservations, terms, conditions, and covenants described in Quitclaim 
Deed No. 17808A from the United States to Accomack County, Virginia, 
executed on December 20, 1976, and recorded among the real estate 
records of Accomack County, Virginia, by the Clerk of the Circuit 
Court, on pages 292 through 296 of Deed Book 381.
    (c) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in 
subsection (a) consists of approximately 31.6 acres situated in the 
Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia, more particularly 
described in the metes and bounds description recorded on page 292 of 
the quitclaim deed described in subsection (b).

            Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2087

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic 
                  District, Accomack County, Virginia.
```
|   | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:   | /s/ Emanuel Chirico                            |   |
|-------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: | Emanuel ChiricoChairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-K into Hadco Corporation's previously
filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File No. 33-2915, File No. 33-12555,
File No. 33-24975, File No. 33-24976, File No. 33-40616, File No. 33-48288, and
File No. 333-11485
 
                                                         /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Boston, Massachusetts
January 8, 1997
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Nick Plessas, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of Green Dolphin Corporation (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ending September
30, 2002 (The "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and

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

Dated: November 14, 2002

By:/s/  Nick Pleases

Nick Pleases

Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
Revised MATS preamble 12/15/2011 05:29 PM

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cortney --

Attached is a revised MATS preamble and a redline against Monday's version.

Thank you.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitiesMAT S2060_AP52Final20111215.docx

Redline 121511 vs. 121211.docx
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,656
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,549
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                   328,900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             71,299
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (341,650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  68,549
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,866
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (260,414)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (260,414)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (260,414)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (260.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (260.41)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.45

LOGO

46600 Landing Parkway

Fremont, California 94538

P. 408.240.8300

F.
408.321.0293

www.rackable.com

January 29, 2008

Mr. Doug King



|Re: | Position on the Board of Directors of Rackable Systems, Inc. (Rackable Systems)
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Doug:

I am very happy to
offer you a position on the Board of Directors of Rackable Systems (the Board).

All members of Rackable
Systems Board receive an annual cash retainer of $45,000 paid quarterly. Additional cash retainers are paid to Board members who serve as chairman or members of Board committees.

In addition, upon appointment to the Board you will be granted a non-statutory stock option to purchase 30,000 shares of Rackable
Systems common stock. This option will vest over a four year period commencing on the date of your appointment, with 1/48th vesting per month of service. In addition, all Board members are granted a stock option to purchase 2,833 shares of
Rackable Systems common stock upon their re-election to Board at each years annual stockholders meeting.

Rackable
Systems will also reimburse you for your travel expenses in attending Board and committee meetings.

If the terms of this
letter are acceptable to you, please confirm to me your willingness to serve on Rackable Systems Board. Upon your agreement, I will submit your nomination to the Board for formal consideration. We look forward to your favorable reply.



Very truly yours,RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC.By:

/s/    Gary GriffithsGary GriffithsChairman Nominating and CorporateGovernance Committee
**UNPUBLISHED**

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8086** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. MARQUIS D. ARRINGTON,
Defendant

– Appellant.

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

. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. ( 3 :06

- cr - 00255

- JRS )

Submitted : March 30 , 2010 Decided: April 2 8 , 2010

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

Ma rquis D. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Lawrence Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marquis D. Arrington appeals the district court’s order denying his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion
for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Arrington , No.
3:06

- cr - 00255

- JRS (E.D. Va. Oct

. 27 , 2009) . 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
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Texas Water Development Board, * From the 126th District

 Court of Travis County,

 Trial Court No. D-GN-11-000121.

Vs. No. 11-12-00030-CV * May 23, 2013

Ward Timber, Ltd.; Ward Timber * Opinion by McCall, J.

Holdings; Shirley Shumake; (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Gary Cheatwood; Richard McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

Letourneau; and Pat Donelson,

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of 

this appeal are taxed against the Texas Water Development Board.
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 ending March 31, 2004, 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 and
Chief Financial Officer                |  | May 21, 2004
|-------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|David A. Gestetner         |  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer ) |  |
1

Lincoln, Ann

From: Snyder, Blaine

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:00 AM

To: Lincoln, Ann; Cohen, Tara; Cyr, Tara

Subject: FW: SEAMAP manual

Attachments: UsingtheSEAMAPIchthyoplanktonDatabases_Ver2.doc

-----Original Message-----

From: Allen.Ashley@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Allen.Ashley@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:54 PM

To: shari.goodwin@tetratech-ffx.com; Blaine Snyder (E-mail); Kelly Meadows (E-mail)

Cc: Segall.Martha@epamail.epa.gov; Shriner.Paul@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: SEAMAP manual

Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Mailcode 4303T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Ph: (202) 566-1012

Fax: (202) 566-1053

http://epa.gov/waterscience

----- Forwarded by Ashley Allen/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2004 04:36 PM -----

David S Hanisko

<David.S.Hanisko

@noaa.gov> To

Ashley Allen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

10/21/2004 03:06 cc

PM

Subject

Let's try this again with the

actual file

Ashley,

Here is the documentation that I have at this point. Please contact me with any questions. I will be going to sea from

Oct 25 to Nov 8, 2004.

However, I can be reached at the atsea email below during that time.

David S. Hanisko

Research Fisheries Biologist

National Marine Fisheries Service

Pascagoula Laboratory

3209 Frederic St.
2

Pascagoula MS, 39568

Voice: 228-762-4591 x204

Fax: 228-769-9200

David.S.Hanisko@noaa.gov

or in the field at

David.S.Hanisko.atsea@noaa.gov

(See attached file: Using the SEAMAP Ichthyoplankton

Databases_Ver2.doc)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. PAN CALIFORNIA OIL CORPORATION et al., Appellees.

No. 8667.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1937.

Ben Harrison, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal.

Joseph J. Rifkind, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered appeal dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly; mandate forthwith.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2149 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, 

as the ‘‘Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2149 EH

1 SECTION 1. CECIL L. HEFTEL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, 

4 Hawaii, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cecil L. 

5 Heftel Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Cecil L. Heftel Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2149 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. olulu, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Cecil L. Heftel Post Office al Service located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Hon-