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.

July 29, 2016

a0726 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2016

154099

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154099

COA: 332255

Oakland CC: 2015

- 255948

- FH

CHRISTOPHER DUKES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we a re not persuaded

that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 99




Contact:     Kenneth R. Meyers, Senior Vice President - Finance
             United States Cellular Corporation
             (773) 399-8900  Chicago

FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE

                 UNITED STATES CELLULAR FILES SHELF REGISTRATION
                       FOR $400 MILLION OF DEBT SECURITIES

July 31, 1997,  Chicago,  Illinois - United States Cellular  Corporation  [AMEX:
USM] announced today that it has filed a shelf  registration  statement with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  ("SEC")  covering  $400  million  of debt
securities.  USM is  registering  the debt  securities  to enhance its financial
flexibility  and to  position  itself  to be able to  capitalize  on  attractive
financing  opportunities as they may become  available in the  marketplace.  Any
specific offering under the shelf  registration  statement may be made in one or
more series and in amounts,  at prices and on terms to be determined at the time
of any such sale.

A registration  statement  relating to these  securities has been filed with the
SEC but has not yet become  effective.  These securities may not be sold nor may
offers to buy be accepted prior to the time the registration  statement  becomes
effective.  This  press  release  shall not  constitute  an offer to sell or the
solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of these  securities
in any State in which such offer,  solicitation  or sale would be unlawful prior
to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such State.

Based in Chicago,  USM manages and invests in cellular  systems  throughout  the
United States. As of June 30, 1997, USM managed  operational systems serving 141
markets.

USM Internet Home Page:
http://www.uscc.com




<PAGE>
DISMISS; Opinion Filed March 10, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00159

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V.
ASHLEY NICOLE BOLLIE R , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 02

- 0205

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck
Before the Court is the State’s March 2, 2020 motion to dismiss the appeal.

We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 200159F.U05 / David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

No. 05

- 20

- 00159

- CR V.

ASHLEY NICOLE BOLLIER, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 02

- 0205. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Osborne and Reichek participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 10 th day of March, 2020

.
#### JENKINS CO. v. RAMEY et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 8, 1951.

*459Combs & Combs, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

Napier & Napier, C. W. Napier and C. W. Napier, Jr., all of Hazard, for appellees.

VAN SANT, Commissioner.

The action was instituted by appellees against appellant to try title to the mineral rights in and under a small boundary of real estate upon which appellant’s lessee has produced and is now operating a gas well. The Chancellor rendered judgment for appellees who claim under an exception contained in a deed executed by their ancestor, John Ramey, to Nathan Bolen and Mary J. Bolen, on March 13, 1907.

The deed containing the exception conveyed one hundred fifty acres of land, the exception being in the following words, to-wit: “With the exception of all the mineral rites (sic) on one hundred acres more or less.”

In Carr v. Baldwin, 301 Ky. 43, 190 S.W.2d 692, 693, 162 A.L.R. 285, the rule in respect to the validity of an exception is stated in the following words: “Land embraced in an exception must be described with the same definiteness and certainty that is required when describing the property granted.”

The author of that opinion recognized an exception to the rule, which is: that where an exception is described as a certain quantity out of a larger tract, the grantor may cure the uncertainty by electing to do so within a reasonable time, followed by an act in pais. Stephens v. Terry, 178 Ky. 129, 198 S.W. 768.

It cannot be contended that the land embraced in the exception is described with any degree of definiteness or certainty; in fact, language more vague could scarcely have been chosen. Neither is there anything contained in the record which even suggests that the grantor ever attempted to cure the uncertainty of description, nor that any descendent of the grantor ever contended that he was the owner of the mineral rights until after gas was produced. Where a deed otherwise valid contains an exception which is void for uncertainty or vagueness, the title to the whole tract passes to the grantee. Justice v. Justice, 239 Ky. 155, 39 S.W.2d 250.

It is apparent that appellees have failed to establish their title; and, since, whether the suit be at law or in equity, a plaintiff’s right to recover depends on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of that of his adversary, it is unnecessary for us to determine the strength of appellant’s (defendant’s below) title in this action. Monroe v. Rucker, 310 Ky. 229, 220 S.W.2d 391; Whitson v. Morris, 304 Ky. 447, 201 S.W.2d 193.

The judgment is reversed with directions that it be set aside and that another be entered dismissing the petition.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7731
JEFFREY LEE WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA94-1371-CCB) Submitted: February 20, 1996 Decided: March 8, 1996 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Lee Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to timely move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periodsestablished by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting U nited States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on September 12, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 1995. Appellant filed his motion to extend the appeal period more than thirty days after the expiration of the appeal period, so the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Appellant's motion for an extension of time. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or timely seek and obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### BROOKS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 20, 1953.

F. T. Allen, Campton, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

Charles Brooks appeals from a judgment of conviction for grand larceny. His sole ground of error is that he was pre*373maturely tried, in violation of section. 185 of the- Criminal Code.,

Brooks was indicted on September 9, 1952. A bench warrant was issued and he was arrested on September 11. On the day of his arrest, he gave bond for his appearance in court “to answer said charge,” and was released on the bond. The trial was held on September 16, during the same term of court at which the indictment was returned.

The defendant having been arrested three days before the time fixed for trial, there was no violation of section 185 of the Criminal Code. Belcher v. Com., 216 Ky. 126, 287 S.W. 550.

Furthermore, the bill of exceptions does not show that the defendant asked for a continuance or objected to the trial being held. On the contrary, the bill shows that the defendant “announced ready” and waived arraignment. This is an additional reason why his claim of premature trial cannot be upheld. Scalf v. Com., 228 Ky. 234, 14 S.W.2d 759; Chism v. Com., 286 Ky. 314, 150 S.W.2d 694.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### HEYWOOD HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. *v.*CITY OF STAMFORD

*Kenneth B. Povodator,*assistant corporation counsel, in support of the petition.

*Frank W. LiVolsi,*in opposition.

Decided July 2, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 920 (AC 17384), is denied.
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATIONS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Steven D. Simpson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Extended Systems Incorporated.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    STEVEN D. SIMPSON


---

Steven D. Simpson


Chief Executive Officer


September 20, 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, Karla K. Rosa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





| | (3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Extended Systems Incorporated.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    KARLA K. ROSA


---

Karla K. Rosa


Chief Financial Officer


September 20, 2002
#### DIXON v. STATE.

No. 24755.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1950.

None on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exceptions, _ but our State’s Attorney calls our attention to the fact that no notice of appeal is" found" in the record. Without notice of appeal this court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.
#### AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCALS 397, 391 AND 1565, AFL-CIO *v.*DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL.

*J. William Gagne, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Richard T. Sponzo,*assistant attorney general, and *Lisa S. Lazarek,*in opposition.

Decided July 16, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 783 (AC 17210), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal.

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Swank, Inc.
                         90 Park Avenue
                    New York, New York 10016



                                                    June 10, 1999



Mr. John A. Tulin
1196 Elinore Road
Hewlett, New York 11557

Dear Mr. Tulin:

     Reference is hereby made to the Agreement dated as of
January 1, 1990 between Swank, Inc. (the "Corporation") and you
concerning your employment by the Corporation, as amended by
letter agreements dated as of January 1, 1992, September 1,1993,
January 1, 1997 and December 10,1998 between the Corporation and
you (as amended, the "Existing Employment Agreement"). This
letter will serve to confirm our agreement to amend the Existing
Employment Agreement as of the date hereof as follows:

     The term of the Existing Employment Agreement is hereby
extended for an additional three (3) year period, commencing on
January 1, 1999 and ending on December 31, 2001 (the "Extension
Period"). During the Extension Period, the Corporation shall pay
to you, and you agree to accept, a base salary at the rate of
$410,000, payable in such installments as shall be mutually
agreed upon by you and the Corporation, plus such additional
compensation, if any, as the Board of Directors of the
Corporation shall from time to time determine.

     Except as modified and amended by this letter, the Existing
Employment Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and
effect on and after the date hereof.

     This letter may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken
together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

     This letter shall be governed by, and construed and
enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York,
without regard to principles of conflicts or choice of law.

     If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding and
agreement, kindly countersign this letter in the space provided
below.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SWANK, INC.

                              By: /s/ Christopher F. Wolf
                              Name: Christopher F. Wolf
                              Title: Chief Financial Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

/s/ John A. Tulin

John A. Tulin
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-562-000]

Take notice that on September 22, 2000, Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. (Clear Creek) tendered for filing its explanation of why it is not feasible for Clear Creek to comply with Order No. 587-L.

Clear Creek states that since it does not impose of imbalance penalty provisions, implementation of Order No. 587-L is not necessary on its system.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26684  Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 306 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 306

             For the relief of Corina de Chalup Turcinovic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2013

 Mr. Lipinski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of Corina de Chalup Turcinovic.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CORINA DE CHALUP TURCINOVIC.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Corina de Chalup Turcinovic 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Corina de Chalup Turcinovic enters 
the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection 
(c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Corina de Chalup Turcinovic, 
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 
1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number 
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Corina de 
Chalup Turcinovic shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5677 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5677

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Vat Black 25.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2012

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Vat Black 25.

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

SECTION 1. VAT BLACK 25.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.45 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Vat Black 25) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```