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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134936 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DENISE MOYER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134936 

 COA: 276154 

Macomb CC: 05-001443-NI 

NANCY SIELOFF and KENNETH SIELOFF, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the decision of the Macomb Circuit Court 

denying summary disposition to the defendants on the ground that the defendants’ 

knowledge of an ice hazard rendered the open and obvious doctrine inapplicable. 

Because the plaintiff was a licensee, the defendants only had a duty to warn the plaintiff 

of hidden dangers known to the defendants. Stitt v Holland Abundant Life, 452 Mich 

591, 596 (2000). The fact that the danger was known to the defendants does not mean 

that the danger was hidden to the plaintiff. We REMAND this case to the Macomb 

Circuit Court for further consideration of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition 

to determine whether the icy condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injury was 

open and obvious. Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001). 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

t0117 

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. 

January 24, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,858                  20,858
<SECURITIES>                                     4,178                   4,178
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,929                  19,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,289                   1,289
<INVENTORY>                                      3,595                   3,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,590                  49,590
<PP&E>                                          37,622                  37,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,667                  92,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,257                  13,257
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           163                     163
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,475                  78,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,667                  92,667
<SALES>                                         22,818                  64,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,818                  64,461
<CGS>                                           15,789                  45,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,082                  66,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (331)                 (1,043)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     67                 (1,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       208                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (141)                 (1,320)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (141)                 (1,320)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)                  (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)                  (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-11-00412-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 26, 2011

WILLIE EARL JOHNSON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 278TH DISTRICT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY;

NO. 11-11499-278-8; HONORABLE VANN CULP, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Willie Earl Johnson, filed a notice of appeal on September 8, 2011, 

challenging his conviction and sentence in trial court cause number 11-11499-278-8. 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant was convicted of the offense of 

aggravated robbery, and sentenced to 25 years incarceration on June 17, 2011. We 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In a criminal case in which no motion for new trial is filed, the notice of appeal 

must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed in open court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.2(a). The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within 15 
2

days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a 

motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.3. Under these rules, appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed on July

18, 2011,

1

but was not filed with the trial court clerk until September 8, 2011, over a 

month outside the fifteen-day extension period. 

A notice of appeal which complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

is essential to vest this Court with jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 

209-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, this Court does not 

obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, and can take no action other than 

to dismiss the appeal. Id. at 210. 

We acknowledge that appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing 

a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is also beyond the jurisdiction of this 

Court.2 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3 (West Supp. 2010); Ex parte 

Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). 

 

1

Thirty days from the date that sentence was imposed would be July 17, 2011. 

However, because July 17 was a Sunday, the deadline extends to the next day on 

which the Court was open. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a).

2 We note that the certification of defendant’s right of appeal filed in this cause 

indicates that it “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” In 

addition, the clerk’s record contains a written waiver of appeal signed by the defendant. 

Thus, even if appellant is granted an out-of-time appeal in this case, the case will be 

subject to dismissal if a certification that shows that appellant has the right of appeal is 

not made part of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
3

Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4806-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4806-DR), dated August 10, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 28, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of August 10, 2024.

    Alachua and Jefferson Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, 
Manatee, Sarasota, Suwannee, and Taylor Counties for permanent work 
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and 
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures 
[Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the 
Public Assistance program).
    Baker, Charlotte, Jefferson, Leon, Union, and Wakulla Counties 
for Public Assistance, including direct federal assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-20494 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
#### PAGE et al. v. BOND. Chief Justice, et al.

Motion No. 14253.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1939.

*580Jones & Jones and J. Edwin Smith, all of Longview, for the motion. •

Thompson, Knight, Baker, Harris & Wright, Pinkney Grissom, and James E. Henderson, all of Dallas, for Linde Air Products Co.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is reported in Linde Air Products Co. v. Page, 131 S.W.2d 1057. Relators were plaintiffs in the trial court, and seek leave here by motion to file a petition for mandamus compelling the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas to certify the venue question involved. It is made to appear by the motion and application that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is in conflict with certain opinions of other courts of civil appeals.

 Whatever conflicts heretofore existed with reference to the question at issue have been settled by this Court in the recent case of Stone Fort National Bank of Nacogdoches v. Forbess, 126 Tex. 568, 91 S.W.2d 674. This Court will not require the certification of a question which it has already decided unless the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals he in conflict with its decision. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Gallagher, 127 Tex. 553, 94 S.W.2d 410; Harris v. Leslie, 128 Tex. 81, 96 S.W.2d 276. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in the instant case being in harmony with the opinion of this court in the Stone Fort National Bank case, supra, the motion for leave to file petition for mandamus is overruled.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Paradise,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack M. Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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 result of operations of Paradise, Inc.



|                                      |  |                     
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|/s/ Jack M. Laskowitz                 |  | Date: March 26, 2010
|Jack M. Laskowitz                     |  |                     
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  |
#### BERNARD et al. v. CROWELL.

No. 8682.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 25, 1931.

See, also, 38 S.W.(2d) 912.

Jas. P. Cogdell, of Raymondville, and Greenwood & Lewis and A. N. Beem, all of Har-lingen, for appellants.

A. B. Crane, of Raymondville, and Joseph Higgins, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

FLY, O. J.

Appellee sued appellants to recover $600 alleged to be due him as a fee for his services as an attorney. The cause was tried by jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee in the sum of $600.

The court began his instructions to the jury with a dissertation on the facts of the case, 'assuming proof of several important matters connected with the case; then after that treatise, consisting of a due admixture of facts and law, he proceeded to present four special issues. The issue of the amount due appellee for his services in the trial court was not presented and was not mentioned in the answers, the only amount found due being $250, for services in the Court of Civil Appeals. However, such a minor thing as having no finding of the amount due for services in the trial court was unimportant. The trial judge proceeded to render a judgment in favor of appellee for $600; doubtless because he sought a judgment for that amount.

Appellant has not been accorded the right to go before a jury uninfluenced by any misconception of the law presented by the court and free from any opinion of the trial court of the effect and potency of the facts, and such right should be and will be guarded by an appellate court.

It was the duty of the court to present the case to the jury either on a general charge or on special issues, and not on a mixture of the two, and certainly the court had no authority to fake the facts away from the jury and build a structure of supposed law thereon.

No contract was shown between the parties, but, when a written instrument seeking to bind appellants was presented to them, they refused to sign it. This it would appear would have settled the matter as to an express contract, and yet, in the face of the refusal to sign the written contract, it was presented and admitted as evidence before the jury. On what theory it was admitted ■has not been revealed.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2597 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 

payments to children’s hospitals that operate graduate medical education 

programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2018 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. PORTMAN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. 

CORNYN, Mr. REED, Mr. PERDUE, and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

program of payments to children’s hospitals that operate 

graduate medical education programs, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children’s Hospital 

5 GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2018’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2597 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN’S HOS2 PITALS THAT OPERATE GRADUATE MEDICAL 

3 EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

4 Section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 256e) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and each of 

7 fiscal years 2014 through 2018,’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

8 each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018, and each of 

9 fiscal years 2019 through 2023’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (b)(3)(D), by inserting ‘‘and 

11 the end of fiscal year 2022,’’ after ‘‘fiscal year 

12 2018,’’; and 

13 (3) in subsection (f)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)— 

15 (i) in clause (iv), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

16 and inserting ‘‘;’’; 

17 (ii) in clause (v), by striking the pe18 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

19 (iii) by adding at the end the fol20 lowing: 

21 ‘‘(vi) for each of fiscal years 2019 

22 through 2023, $110,000,000.’’; and 

23 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

24 (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking 

25 ‘‘; and’’ and inserting ‘‘;’’; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2597 IS

1 (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

2 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

3 and’’; and 

4 (iii) by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(F) for each of fiscal years 2019 through 

7 2023, $220,000,000.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2692 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2692

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, as the ``Stanley Michels Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2018

Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, as the ``Stanley Michels Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STANLEY MICHELS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Stanley Michels Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Stanley 
Michels Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F E L I P E AL MANZ A, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 10036 D. C . No . 2 : 9 2 - c r - 0 0 2 7 7 - DA E ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da D a vi d A . E z r a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t23, 2010 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , H A W K IN S , an dT H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F e l i pe A l m anz aappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rgr ant i ng hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on f ors e nt e nc e r e duc t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an dw e a f f irm . A lm an z ac o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e db yim p o s in g as ub s tan tiv e ly 

# FI LED SEP 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 10036 2 u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e , f a ilin g to c o n s id e ra ll th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s to i m po se an i nd i vi du al i ze d sent ence , and tre at i ng the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s m a n d a to ry . T h e s e c o n te n tio n s a r e f o r e c lo s e d . See D i l lon v. U ni ted States , 1 3 0 S. C t . 26 83 , 26 91 -93 (20 10 ). AF F I RME D.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 81152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32441]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 732, 738, 740, 743, 758, and 774

[Docket No. 100923470-0626-02]
RIN 0694-AF03

Export Control Modernization: Strategic Trade Authorization 
License Exception

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a typographical error in the address 
for submitting e-mail comments that appeared in a proposed rule, 
``Export Control Modernization: Strategic Trade Authorization License 
Exception,'' published on December 9, 2010.

DATES: Comments must be received by BIS no later than February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this correction may be submitted to the Federal 
rulemaking portal (http://www.regulations.gov). The regulations.gov ID 
for this rule is: BIS-2010-0038. Comments may also be submitted via e-
mail to publiccomments@bis.doc.gov or on paper to Regulatory Policy 
Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room 2705, U.S. Department 
of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please refer to RIN 0694-AF03 in all 
comments and in the subject line of e-mail comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Arvin, Regulatory Policy 
Division, e-mail warvin@bis.doc.gov, telephone 202-482-2440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The address for submitting e-mail comments 
was incorrectly stated under the ADDRESSES caption of a proposed rule 
entitled ``Export Control Modernization: Strategic Trade Authorization 
License Exception'' (75 FR 76653, December 9, 2010). This correction 
notice states the correct e-mail address in the ADDESSSES caption, 
which is publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.
    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010-30968, beginning on page 76653 in the 
issue of December 9, 2010, make the following correction: On page 
76654, in the ADDRESSES section, correct ``publiccomments.bis.doc.gov'' 
to read ``publiccomments@bis.doc.gov''.

Bernard Kritzer,
Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-32441 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
```