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.

 June 1, 2018

Order 

Clerk

June 1, 2018

157835(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 157835

v COA: 342075

Wayne CC: 09-003770-FC

DOUGLAS CORNELL JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file an

application for leave to appeal in excess of the page limitation is DENIED. The only issue 

reviewable by this Court at this time is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing 

the defendant-appellant’s delayed application for leave to appeal on jurisdictional grounds 

because he failed to file it within the time period required by MCR 7.205(G)(3). The 

substantive issues in the defendant-appellant’s application that cause it to exceed the page 

limitation cannot be reviewed by this Court on their merits. The defendant-appellant shall

file a substitute application for leave to appeal within 35 days of the date of this order 

addressing the jurisdictional issue only. Failure to timely file the substitute application will 

result in the administrative dismissal of this case.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm

The Board of
Directors 
Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in:

|     |                        
|---- | -----------------------
|Form | Registration
 Statement
|     |                        
|S-8  | 333-168830             
|S-8  | 333-157872             

We consent to the use of our report dated March 15, 2011, with respect to the
consolidated statements of financial condition of Rodman & Renshaw Capital
Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders
equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appear in the December
31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.
The aforementioned report with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc., refers to changes, in 2010, in the
Companys method of accounting for consolidation of variable interest entities.

/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New
York 
March 15, 2011

---
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 178

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from

1993, to Tuesday, November 16, 1993of the Senate from Wednesday, November 10,vember 15, 1993, and an adjournment or recessWednesday, November 10, 1993, to Monday, No-
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 178

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Wednes3 day, November 10, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon

4 on Monday, November 15, 1993, or until noon on the sec5 ond day after Members are notified to reassemble pursu6 ant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

7 occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or ad8 journs at the close of business on Wednesday, November

9 10, 1993, pursuant to a motion made by the majority lead10 er or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it

11 stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, No12 vember 16, 1993, or at such time as may be specified by

13 the majority leader or his designee in the motion to recess

14 or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members

15 are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

16 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
2

HCON 178 EH

1 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

2 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

3 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

4 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

5 the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

6 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6196** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.

LEIF ERIK LAWSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

**No. 13**  **- 6319** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.

LEIF ERIK LAWSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr
- 00433

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Leif Erik Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Leif Erik Lawson appeals the district court ’s order s denying his “Motion to Run Time (Sentencing) Concurrent ly with
State Sentencing or Jail Credit ” and “Motion for Phone Records
for Appeal Case.” We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Lawson , No.

3:08

- cr
- 00433

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29 & Feb. 12 , 2013)

. We deny Lawson’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before th is court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Clyde PIERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27201.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for murder with malice; the punishment, twelve years in the penitentiary.

The state’s evidence shows that appellant voluntarily shot the deceased, George Hoppe, three times with a pistol and that the deceased died as a result of the wounds caused by the shots.

Appellant, while testifying in his own behalf, stated that deceased had threatened to kill him because he thought that áppel-*902lant had caused his place of business to be raided and closed by the officers; that the deceased had so told several persons who informed him of deceased’s intentions to kill him. It was also shown that the deceased had made threats against him if he did not pay off a debt owed to him by 10 P. M. the night of the tragedy; that immediately before the shooting he approached the deceased with the intention of making a payment on his debt when the deceased attacked him which caused him to shoot because he thought the deceased was going to kill him; that they scuffled over the possession of the gun which caused it to be discharged.

Appellant offered several witnesses whose testimony supported his version of the incident and the surrounding facts and circumstances.

The jury resolved the issues of fact against appellant and we find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

A subsequent motion for a continuance based on the absence of certain witnesses is shown in the transcript, along with the court’s order overruling the same. No exception to such ruling is shown. In the absence of an exception to the ruling of the court on said motion, we are not authorized to consider it. Art. 760e, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Perry v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 266 S.W.2d 171.

 Appellant, by specially requested charges which were refused, sought to have the jury instructed upon his right to carry a pistol for the purpose of protecting himself, if he believed that deceased would do him serious bodily injury or take his life.

Unless the charge of the court placed a limitation in some manner upon the accused’s right of self-defense, a charge as to the right of the accused to carry arms is not required. Branch’s Ann.P.C. 1091, Sec. 1950; McCoy v. State, 138 Tex. Cr.R. 138, 134 S.W.2d 273; Fisher v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 170 S.W.2d 773.

The court’s charge placed no limitation upon appellant’s right of self-defense, therefore no error is shown in refusing the requested charges.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Announcing the Third Quarterly Meeting of the Crash Injury 
Research and Engineering Network

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Meeting announcement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Third Quarterly Meeting of members 
of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network. CIREN is a 
collaborative effort to conduct research on crashes and injuries at 
nine Level 1 Trauma Centers which are linked by a computer network. 
Researchers can review data and share expertise, which could lead to a 
better understanding of crash injury mechanisms and the design of safer 
vehicles.

DATE AND TIME: The meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 
November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 6200-04 of the U.S. 
Department of Transportation Building, which is located at 400 Seventh 
Street, SW, Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CIREN System has been established and 
crash cases have been entered into the database by each Center. NHTSA 
has held three Annual Conferences (two in Detroit and one in 
conjunction with STAPP in San Diego) where CIREN research results were 
presented. Further information about the three previous CIREN 
conferences is available through the NHTSA website at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/include/bio_and_trauma/ciren-final.htm. NHTSA held 
the first quarterly meeting on May 5, 2000, with a topic of lower 
extremity injuries in motor vehicle crashes and the second quarterly 
meeting on July 21, 2000, with a topic of side impact crashes. 
Information from the May 5 and July 21 meetings are also available 
through the NHTSA website.
    NHTSA plans to continue holding quarterly meetings on a regular 
basis to disseminate CIREN information to interested parties. This is 
the third such meeting. The topic for this meeting is thoracic injuries 
in motor vehicle crashes. Subsequent meetings have tentatively been 
scheduled for March and June 2001. These quarterly meetings will be in 
lieu of an annual CIREN conference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Donna Stemski, Office of Human-
Centered Research, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6206, Washington, DC 
20590, telephone: (202) 366-5662.

    Issued on: November 2, 2000.
Raymond P. Owings,
Associate Administrator for Research and Development, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-28700 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-U
I • 

I . I 

I I 

SERVED: AUGUST 11, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0119 

SPIRIT AVIONICS, LTD. 

Case No. 2012-GL-07-0056 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND CONTINUANCE OF THE 

RULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

On July 16,2014, an Order Granting Continuance of the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference was filed. Among other things, this Order set the Rule 16 Litigation Conference on 

August 11, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, and directed the parties to file a Rule 26(f) 

Proposed Scheduling and Discovery Plan on or before August 4, 2014. 

On August 11, 2014, the parties appeared by telephone for a Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference, but noted that their Rule 26(f) Proposed Scheduling and Discovery Plan 

had been prepared, but had mistakenly not been filed. 

Having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, 

regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1), the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set 

for August 11, 2014, is continued to Wednesday, August 27, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. 

Eastern time. 

2. The deadline for the parties to submit a jointly written Rule 26(f) Proposed Scheduling 

and Discovery Plan is August 20, 2014 (i.e., one week prior to the Rule 16 Conference). 

U.S. Adm1mstrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
I , 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Ms. Kate Barber 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration, AGL-7 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

Mr. Jerry A. Eichenberger 

Respondent's Counsel 

· EICHENBERGER & ASSOCIATES 

6037 Frantz Road, Suite 107 

Dublin, OH 43017 

TEL: 614-798-1600 

FAX: 614-798-1620 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

ONE COPY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0119 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 14 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 14

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas it is in the public interest to reduce the frequency of workplace 
        accidents and the human and economic costs associated with such 
        injuries;
Whereas workplace accidents involving powered industrial trucks are often the 
        result of operation by poorly trained, untrained, or unauthorized 
        operators;
Whereas Federal regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration and codified at 29 C.F.R. 1910.178 require that operators 
        of powered industrial trucks be trained and authorized;
Whereas existing regulations lack any guidelines to measure whether operators of 
        powered industrial trucks are in fact trained and authorized;
Whereas operator training programs have been demonstrated to reduce the 
        frequency and severity of workplace accidents involving powered 
        industrial trucks; and
Whereas a petition to amend existing regulations to specify the proper 
        components of a training program for operation of powered industrial 
        trucks has been pending before the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration since March 1988: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is requested to 
publish, within one year of passage of this resolution, proposed 
regulations amending the regulation published as 29 C.F.R. 1910.178 to 
specify the components of an adequate operator training program and to 
provide that only trained employees be authorized to operate powered 
industrial trucks.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 14

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to certain regulations of 
          the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.`
#### COMMONWEALTH CASUALTY & INS. CO. v. MORRIS.

No. 2180.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Oct. 10, 1941.

*395John G. Whitaker, of Dallas, for appellant.

Gullett & Gullett, of Denison, and J. S. Kone, of Sherman, for appellee.

LESLIE, Chief justice.

To avoid a multiplicity of suits against it, the Commonwealth Casualty & Insurance Company filed its petition in the County Court seeking to restrain Aaron M. Morris from prosecuting three separate suits, each demanding claims based upon and arising as benefits out of the terms of an insurance policy issued to him by the company, and indemnifying him for time lost due to disabilities resulting from sickness, accident, etc.

The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, etc. That action is assigned as error.

The truth of the allegations of the petition being thus admitted, we examine the same to ascertain the correctness of the court’s ruling. As stated, this proceeding seeks to restrain the prosecution of three separate suits upon the same contract on the theory that all could be brought in one suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits and the unnecessary costs, expenses, etc. incident to defending several suits. The amount claimed in each suit was within the jurisdiction of the justice court and the sum of the three claims aggregated $419.19. Two of the suits carried consecutive numbers on the docket and were filed on the same day. The other suit was filed soon thereafter but relator does not allege the specific date. It was further alleged that no reason existed for filing the claims in separate suits, except the desire and intention on the part of the plaintiff therein .(respondent) to injure and harass the plaintiff (relator) and that the plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy, etc.

The claims are all held by Morris against the Insurance Company. They are similar in nature, involve similar facts, grow out of the same .general source (legal rights under the terms of the policy), and are all capable of adjustment in one suit. Under facts and circumstances alleged, we conclude that the remedy sought by relator (Insurance Company) is a just and proper relief, and -that it will work no unnecessary hardship upon the respondent (Morris) who may have his legal rights determined expeditiously in one suit in a court of proper jurisdiction and at no unnecessary increase in expense or loss of time.

It appears that no ground of equity jurisprudence is more firmly established than the prevention of a multiplicity of suits when such action promotes the ends of justice. Therefore, upon the authority of Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pearlstone Mill & Elevator Co., Tex.Com.App., 53 S. W.2d, 1001; Standard Inv. Co. v. Dowdy, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 1107, and 21 C. J. p. 71, § 48, and cases cited therein, we conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

The assignments of error are sustained and the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICEROF DATASTREAM SYSTEMS, INC.PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Datastream Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned C. Alex Estevez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

|  | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

  

|   |   |   |                                                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ C. ALEX ESTEVEZ                                                                       |
|   |   |   | **C. Alex Estevez****Chief Financial Officer****Datastream Systems, Inc.**August 14, 2003 |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. No. A-1-CA-36896

5 MARIO GOMEZ,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

8 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 Lauren J. Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 L. Helen Bennett, P.C.

15 L. Helen Bennett

16 Albuquerque, NM

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 HANISEE, Judge.
1 {1} Defendant appeals following the district court entering judgment against him

2 that included a requirement that Defendant pay restitution to the Metro Narcotics

3 Agency Contingency Fund. On appeal, Defendant contends that the district court’s

4 requirement that Defendant pay restitution was not a proper legal remedy in this case

5 and/or, “even if restitution is found to be proper, [he] should not be required to pay

6 restitution on dismissed conspiracy counts.” [DS 3] This Court issued a second

7 calendar notice proposing to conclude that, because Defendant was only convicted on

8 one count of trafficking and the remaining two conspiracy to commit trafficking

9 charges were dismissed, only $150 of restitution was proper.

10 {2} In response, the State has filed a notice indicating that it will not file a

11 memorandum in opposition to this Court’s second calendar notice, and Defendant has

12 filed a memorandum in opposition continuing to argue that the Metro Narcotics

13 Agency cannot be a “victim” for the purpose of restitution. As Defendant makes no

14 new arguments regarding restitution, see State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10,

15 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (providing that a party responding to a summary

16 calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,

17 and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superceded

18 by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297
2

1 P.3d 374, we proceed with summary affirmance, in part, and summary reversal, in

2 part.

3 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

4 

5 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

6 WE CONCUR:

7 

8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 

9 

10 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge