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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

p0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137962 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137962 

 COA: 288426 

Kent CC: 07-009061-FC 

HAYWARD EUGENE WELCH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 2211** 

EDWARD D. PLOTZKER, M.D. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; AMERICAN BOARD OF URO LOGY, Incorporated; KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP; GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, d/b/a George Washington University Medical Center; KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP; JOHN AND JANE DOES , Defendants

– Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the W estern District of Virginia , at Charlottesville
. Norman K. Moon , District Judge. ( 3:08

- cv - 00027

- nkm

- bwc )

Submitted : May 20, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam o pinion
. Edward D. Plotzker, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, James Worth Draughn, Jr., KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., K. Lorraine Lord, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, Melissa Wolf Riley, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, Adam Howard Charnes, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Edward D. Plotzker, M.D ., seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his various claims against them. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its office r or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5 ), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on October 22, 2008
. The notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2009
. Because Plotzker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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
#### Phillip WOLFE et al., Appellants, v. Dr. John R. THOMAS et al., Appellees.

No. 10965.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 14, 1941.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1941.

Hazel & Ruhmann, of Alice, for appellants.

J. B. Trimble and Sidney P. Chandler, both of Corpus Christi, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion, on authority of Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**DERECK MICHAEL MARTZ,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 560 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 7 th**  **day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal** 

**is** GRANTED **. The issues as stated by petitioner are:**

**(1) Whether the common law Infancy Defense should no lo nger be**  **recognized as a defense since the adoption of the Juveni le Act of 1976,**  42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et seq. **, and in light of the expansion of the Statute of Limitations for sexual assault crimes against minors, when**  **its continued application results in inequitable and disparate treatm**  **ent of offenders in the juvenile justice versus the adult criminal justice syste**  **m for the same offenses, and is prejudicial to victims?** 

**(2) In the alternative, if the Infancy Defense is deem ed a viable common law**  **defense, is it an affirmative defense which can only be determined at Trial**  **by the fact finder, and cannot be used to exclude evide nce or dismiss**  **charges prior to Trial.**
Case 2:22-cr-00105-Z-BR Document 17 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 20
Case 2:22-cr-00105-Z-BR Document 17 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 21
Case 2:22-cr-00105-Z-BR Document 17 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 22
Case 2:22-cr-00105-Z-BR Document 17 Filed 10/27/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 23
Case 2:22-cr-00105-Z-BR Document 17 Filed 10/27/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 24
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134513 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: 134513 

 COA: 276460 

Jackson CC: 04-000204-FH 

RANIS TAWON HILL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2007 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). 

s1022 

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. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70869-70870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA; Special Committee 195; Flight Information Services 
Communications (FISC)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee (SC)-195 meeting to be held December 12-14, 2000, 
starting at 8:30 a.m. each day. The meeting will be held at NASA 
Langley Research Center (LaRC), Building 1219, Room 128, 1000 NASA 
Road, Hampton, VA 23681-2199.
    The agenda will include: December 12: Plenary convenes: (1) Welcome 
and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Agenda; (3) Working Group (WG)-1, 
Aircraft Cockpit Weather Display; Plenary reconvenes: (4) Review of 
Previous Meeting Minutes; (5) Report from WG-1 on Activities; December 
13: (6) Resolve Industry Comments on Flight Information Service-
Broadcast (FIS-B) Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards 
(MASPS);

[[Page 70870]]

December 14: (7) Continue Review and Resolution of Industry Comments on 
FIS-B Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS); (8) Review 
Issues and Action Items; (9) Address Future Work; (10) Other Business; 
(11) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (12) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2000.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-30257 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### BYROM v. STATE.

No. 21682.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1941.

W. T. Locke, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for misdemeanor theft.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
1 Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 1:00 PM To: Whiteman, Chad Subject: Clean and Redline FRN Files--EO12866 Tier 3 2060-AQ 86 FRM FRN Attachments: EO12866_Tier_3_2060-AQ86_FRM_FRN_20140228_redline.d oc; EO12866_Tier_3_2060- AQ86_FRM_FRN_20140228.doc



### Attached are the clean and redlined files for the p reamble and regs. RIA to come separately.
#### Verna NORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22168.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1942.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for passing a forged instrument. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Since perfecting her appeal, appellant has filed a motion, duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing said appeal. The motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of MQ Medical Technologies Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2017 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
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 represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 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.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 17, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KENNETH RAY WALKER,

Plaintiff,

vs. No. 3:22-CV-2422-C-BK

CPD, ET AL,,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTTNC FINDINGS AND RE,COMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters ofrecord in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bX I ), the Court is ofthe opinion that the Findings and Conclusions

of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the

Court. The case will be dismissed by separate judgment for failure to prosecute or follow orders of

the Court.

SO ORDERED.

/

Datedthis /7 day ofApril,2023

/44'7'7'"o

)

)

)

)

)

)

S

CU GS

RUNI D STATES DISTRI JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02422-C-BK Document 14 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 54
Exhibit 32.4

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 Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Burke, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                                                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN P. BURKE                                                                                                   
|                       |  |  |  | John P. Burke                                                                                                          
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Treasurer of Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings,
L.P.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION II Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC32"

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

March 1, 2016

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10240 Summary Calendar

BETHY JANETTE BURTON, Plaintiff - Appellant v. REAGAN COUNTY; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES - Adult Protective Services; MHMR SERVICES FOR THE CONCHO VALLEY; BIG SPRING STATE HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CV-64
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bethy Burton appeals the district court’s order denying her three motions and dismissing her case with prejudice b e c a u s e her claims were frivolous. Burton’s co m p l ai nt , premised upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that during and before 2004, the defendants violated her constitutional rights, as we ll a s s t ate and federal law. The violations alleged by Burton include that she was subject U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 4, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10240 Document: 00511601925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2011No. 11-10240

to “a plurality of United States Bill of Rights Violations,” church/state violations, bias crime, forced exile, animal cruelty, and cruel and unusual punishment. The district court found that Burton’s allegations wer e “wholly frivolous in both law and fact[,]” as they were “either not actionable under any set of facts

or not actionable in a federal court of limited jurisdiction.” Burton’s claims, the district court added, were also time-barred by Texas state law. The district court accordingly denied Burton’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), for appointment of counsel, and for service of process b y U

. S

. M arshal, and dismissed her case with prejudice. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint

as frivolous. Macias v

. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). An IFP proceeding may be dis missed if the complaint “lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court has broad discretion in making its determination that a c o m p laint is frivolous. Macias , 23 F.3d at 97. Burto n ar gu e s “ [t] h e Complaint pleadings were not malicious or frivolous[, n]either were any delusions presented to the Court.” Burton further argues that “[t]he facts are not ‘fantastic’

. . . and the ‘legal theory’ is relevant.” Burton fails, however, to explain why her complaint is not defi c i e nt. Instead, her appellate briefs are conclusory, confirming that her claims are frivolous. See Pedraza v. Meyer , 919 F.2d 317, 318 n.1 (5th Cir.1 990). Largely for the reasons articulated by the district court, it was n o t a n abuse of discretion to deny Burton’s motions and dis mi s s h er case with prejudice. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-10240 Document: 00511601925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2011
#### J. R. FOSTER, Appellant, v. W. C. BUTLER et al., Appellees.

No. 11054.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 26, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 23, 1941.

Lloyd & Lloyd, of Alice, for appellant.

Jones & Fly, and C. M. Gaines, all of San Antonio, and Perkins & Floyd, and Frank T. Morrill, all of Alice, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion on authority of Associated Indemnity Corporation v. J. M. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
# C_2019093EN.01007201.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/72

---

Action brought on 14 January 2019 — Limango v EUIPO — Consolidated Artists (limango)

(Case T-23/19)

(2019/C 93/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Limango GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Hauss-Löhde, and M. Mette, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark limango — Application for registration No 6 943 096

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2018 in related Cases R 1844/2017-1 and R 2093/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the opposition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition in its entirety;

| — | order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CITY OF DALLAS;

CITY OF ABILENE;

CITY OF ALLEN;

CITY OF AMARILLO;

CITY OF ARLINGTON;

CITY OF AUSTIN;

CITY OF BEAUMONT;

CITY OF CARROLLTON;

CITY OF DENTON;

CITY OF FORT WORTH;

CITY OF FRISCO;

CITY OF GARLAND;

CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE;

CITY OF HOUSTON;

CITY OF IRVING;

CITY OF LEWISVILLE;

CITY OF McKINNEY;

CITY OF MESQUITE;

CITY OF NACOGDOCHES;

CITY OF PEARLAND;

CITY OF PLANO;

CITY OF ROWLETT;

CITY OF SUGAR LAND;

CITY OF TYLER; and

CITY OF WACO,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

DISNEY DTC, LLC;

HULU, LLC; and

NETFLIX, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02071-L

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF

DAVID AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS ON BEHALF OF ALL PLAINTIFFS

Case 3:22-cv-02071-L Document 39 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 972
2

David Austin R. Nimocks, counsel for Plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered 

cause, hereby files this Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs and 

respectfully requests that he be permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs will continue to be represented by Steven D. Wolens, Steven M. 

Berezney, Garrett R. Broshuis, Christopher L. Peele, and each Plaintiff’s city attorney (or 

assistant city attorney) that has entered an appearance on this matter.

Granting this motion will cause no prejudice to any party, or delay in this matter.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this the 13th day of December, 2022,

/s/ David Austin R. Nimocks

David Austin R. Nimocks

Texas Bar No. 24002695

Ashcroft Law Firm

919 Congress Ave., Ste. 1325

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: (512) 370-1800

Facsimile: (512) 727-8200

Email: animocks@ashcroftlawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on or about December 13, 2022, 2022, I conferred with counsel 

for Defendants and none are opposed.

/s/ David Austin R. Nimocks

David Austin R. Nimocks

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E), I hereby certify that on December 13, 

2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF 

system, which will send a notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ David Austin R. Nimocks

David Austin R. Nimocks

Case 3:22-cv-02071-L Document 39 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 973