alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

June 25, 2015 

v No. 321058 

Calhoun Circuit Court 

ABDIAS ANTOINE, LC No. 2011-003714-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and MURPHY and SERVITTO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant, Abdias Antoine, appeals as of right his sentence following a jury conviction 

for assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83. The trial court initially sentenced defendant to 

23 years, 9 months to 40 years’ imprisonment, but reduced his sentence to 16 to 40 years’ 

imprisonment following this Court’s remand for resentencing.1 We affirm. 

 On appeal, defendant concedes that the sentence imposed at resentencing was within the 

guidelines range but claims that the sentence is nevertheless disproportionate. However, 

defendant’s claim is unreviewable because this Court may not consider challenges to a sentence 

based exclusively on proportionality if the minimum sentence falls within the correctly 

calculated recommended minimum sentence range under the legislative guidelines. People v 

Pratt, 254 Mich App 425, 429-430; 656 NW2d 866 (2002). 

 Before January 1, 1999, sentencing decisions fell within the scope of discretionary 

judicial action. See People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 634; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). A sentencing 

court abused its discretion when it prescribed a sentence disproportionate to the offense and the 

offender. Id. at 636. Defendant relies on Milbourn’s reasoning in challenging the 

proportionality of his sentence. However, following enactment of the legislative sentencing 

guidelines, MCL 777.1 et seq. (which apply to enumerated felonies committed on or after 

January 1, 1999), Michigan’s sentencing guidelines now direct that this Court “shall affirm and 

shall not remand for resentencing” any sentence within the appropriate guidelines sentence range 

 

1 People v Antoine, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 15, 

2013 (Docket No. 310544). 
-2- 

“absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in 

determining the defendant’s sentence.” MCL 769.34(10); see also People v Kimble, 470 Mich 

305, 310-311; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). This statutory change rendered Milbourn review 

unavailable. People v Armisted, 295 Mich App 32, 51-52; 811 NW2d 47 (2011). 

 Defendant’s minimum sentence of 16 years (192 months) falls within his correctly 

calculated minimum legislative guidelines range of 135 to 225 months. MCL 777.62. 

Defendant asserts neither a scoring error nor inaccurate information, and we must therefore 

affirm his sentence under MCL 769.34(10). Kimble, 470 Mich at 310-311. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause 

/s/ William B. Murphy 

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
Exhibit 32.1



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 Riverdale Mining Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vladimir Vaskevich, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 12th day of February, 2010.



| | VLADIMIR VASKEVICH                                 
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Vladimir Vaskevich                                 
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer















A signed original of these written statements required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Riverdale Mining Inc. and will be retained by Riverdale Mining Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
## Supreme Court ofthe United States Office ofthe Clerk 

### Washington, DC 20543-0001 Scott S. Harris Clerk of the Court 

### December 12, 2016 (202)479-3011 Clerk Court ofCriminal Appeals ofTexas P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Re: Richard Warren Paige, Jr. v. Texas No. 16-6356 (Your No. WR-72, 964-02) Dear Clerk: 

### The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The petition for a writ ofcertiorari is denied. Sincerely,
Scott S. Harris, Clerk 

### iECfclVfcD IK 

# 'OURTOcrODIMlMAl APPpAJC w: 91 ?m 

# AbelAcosta, Clerk
|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| Citibank, N.A.                        | Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware |
| As ACOLT Indenture Trustee            | As ACOLT Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Karen Driscoll       | Attn:  Mike DiGiacomo |
| 388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor | 1011 Centre Road, Suite 200 |
| New York, NY 10013                    | Wilmington, DE 19805-1266 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas |
|        | Attn:  Corporate Trust & Agency Group - |
|   | Structured Finance Services |
|   | 60 Wall Street, 26th floor |
|   | MAil Stop:  NYC60-2606 |
|   | New York, NY 10005 |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | ACOLT 2012-SN1 - Servicing Agreement |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of September 19, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance under the ACOLT 2012-SN1 Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ACOLT 2012-SN1  Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
Exhibit 10.65

                               EXTENSION AGREEMENT

     THIS  EXTENSION OF NOTE made and entered into  effective as of the 17th day
of  August,  2001,  by and  between  C5 Health,  Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation,
hereinafter  referred to as First Party and  Millennium  Health  Communications,
Inc., hereinafter referred to as Second Party.

     WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS,  on May 22nd,  2001, the First Party executed one Promissory  Note
("the  Note") in the amount of Five Hundred  Thousand  ($500,000.)  Dollars,  in
favor of the Second  Party,  and due and  payable on or before  ninety (90) days
from the date of the Note, or August 19, 2001 ("Due Date"); and

     WHEREAS, the First Party has requested that the Second Party further extend
the Due Date, which the Second Party has agreed to do.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and the benefits inuring
to each of the  parties  and for  other  good and  valuable  consideration,  the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1. The Due Date of August 19, 2001, is extended to December 31, 2001.

     2. EXCEPT as to the Due Date, all of the original terms and stipulations of
the Note and any document memorializing any secured interest of the Second Party
securing First Party's payment and performance of the Note are hereby  ratified,
affirmed and included as if herein copied in full.

     3. NOTHING  HEREIN  contained  shall in any way impair the new held on said
indebtedness;  or  alter,  waiver,  annul  and vary or  affect  any  provisions,
conditions or covenant therein except as herein expressly provided; or affect or
impair any rights,  powers or remedies  under said  original  Note; it being the
intent of the parties  hereto that the terms and  provisions  of said Note shall
continue in full force and effect except as modified  herein.  This Extension of
Note shall not constitute a novation.

     IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,  witness the signatures of the duly authorized of the
First and Second Party, effective as of the date first hereinabove mentioned.



C5 Health, Inc.                          Millennium Health Communications, Inc.
("First Party")                              ("Second Party")


By: /s/ Timothy Novak                        By: /s/Eugene R. Biagi
Name: Timothy Novak                          Name: Eugene R. Biagi
Title:                                       Title:
steam

_ record - Re: RRI Ener gy - Mandala y Generatin g Station Request for ICR Extension

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.
Sincerely,

-----"Di Ciolli, Thomas A." <TDiciolli@rrienergy.com> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Di Ciolli, Thomas A." <TDiciolli@rrienergy.com> Date: 07/02/2010 12:46AM Subject: RRI Energy - Mandalay Generat ing Station Request for ICR Extension

A licea, From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: "Di Ciolli, Thomas A." <TDiciolli@rrienergy.com> Date: 7/2/2010 8:00 PM Sub j ect: Re: RRI Energy - Mandalay Genera ting Station Request for ICR Extension Pa g e 1 of 2

4/25/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E4558DO

...Please find attached RRI Energy, Mandalay Generating Station corres pondence for EPA’s consideration to extend the deadline to complete and comply for the RR I steam-electric generating facilities Effluent ICR requirements.

If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Tom

Tom Di Ciolli

RRI Energy

Mandalay / Ellwood

(805) 984-5241 (Mandalay)

(805) 207-3516 (Cellular)

[ attachment "Extension Request - RRI Mandalay - Steam El ectric Questionnaire 7-1-10.pdf"

r emoved by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US] Pa g e 2 of 2

4/25/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E4558DO

...
Exhibit
32.3





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 Secure America Acquisition Corporation.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
James Maurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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; and





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





May
      14, 2009
              
              /s/  James
      MaurerJames
      MaurerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION
 OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 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 Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brent David Willis, Chief Executive Officer of Electronic Cigarettes International Group, Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 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.





Date: April 1 , 2015
By:
/s/ Brent David WillisBrent David WillisChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 15119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0825; FRL-9908-17-Region 5]

Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Petition for 
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of action denying petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice 
of its response to a petition for reconsideration of a rule published 
in the Federal Register on December 3, 2012, addressing Clean Air Act 
regional haze planning requirements for the State of Michigan. The 
petition, submitted on January 17, 2013, on behalf of St. Marys Cement 
(SMC), asked EPA to reconsider its action promulgating emission limits 
representing best available retrofit technology for SMC's facility in 
Charlevoix, Michigan. EPA has denied the petition by action signed 
February 20, 2014, for reasons that EPA explains in the document 
denying SMC's petition.

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0825, which includes the petition for 
reconsideration, EPA's response, and other related documents. All 
documents are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, Air Planning and Maintenance Section, at 312-886-6067, 
summerhays.john@epa.gov, or at Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action pertains to a particular 
facility in Charlevoix, Michigan, and is not based on a determination 
of nationwide scope or effect. Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act, any petitions for review of EPA's action denying the SMC 
petition for reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for 
the Sixth Circuit on or before May 19, 2014.

    Dated: March 6, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-05905 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

BREANNA LEANNA JACKSON, ) 

DOC #T82109, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-2708 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed September 1, 2017. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, 

Judge. 

Breanna Leanna Jackson, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Breanna Leanna Jackson appeals the summary denial of her motion to 

correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in 

which she argued that her sentence was illegal because the written sentence did not 

conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. 
- 2 - 

 In light of the State's concession and this court's decision in Blocker v. 

State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), we reverse and remand for consideration of 

Jackson's motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Brantley v. 

State, 32 So. 3d 89, 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that the time to seek relief under rule 

3.850 had not yet run and that the motion contained the oath required by the rule). As 

we explained in Blocker, although the evidence that the postconviction court cited in its 

order denying Jackson's rule 3.800(a) motion provided a reasonable basis to conclude 

that a factual question existed with regard to the trial court's oral pronouncement, "such 

postconviction disputes can be resolved only after an evidentiary hearing." Blocker, 968 

So. 2d at 693-94; see also Brantley, 32 So. 3d at 90 (stating that "[a] careful 

examination of the record reveals a reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the 

transcript of the sentencing hearing, thus creating a disputed issue of fact" and, 

therefore, remanding for consideration pursuant to rule 3.850). Accordingly, on remand, 

the postconviction court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the question. 

 Reversed and remanded with directions. 

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2770 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2770

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain machines designed for 
                         children's education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2000

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain machines designed for 
                         children's education.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL DEVICES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.85.43    Electrical        Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     machines and                                                            31/2002          ''
                     apparatus                                                                                 .
                     principally
                     designed for
                     the education
                     of children
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     8543.90.88)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NO. 12-09-00124-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ZHIZHEN “JENNIFER” RAO, § APPEAL FROM THE 420TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

CHARLES WAYNE AIKIN,

APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The

trial court’s judgment was signed on December 30, 2008. Under rule of appellate procedure 26.1,

unless Appellant Zhizhen “Jennifer” Rao timely filed a motion for new trial or other postjudgment

motion that extended the appellate deadlines, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within

30 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., January 29, 2009. Rao filed a motion for new trial.

Therefore, her notice of appeal was due to have been filed “within 90 days after the judgment [was]

signed,” i.e., March 30, 2009. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). However, Rao did not file her notice of

appeal until April 3, 2009. 

On May 14, 2009, this court notified Rao pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

37.1 and 42.3(a) that her notice of appeal was untimely. Rao was also informed that because the

notice of appeal was filed within fifteen days after it was due, a motion for extension of time to file

the notice of appeal is implied. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997);see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. But Rao was warned that if she did not, on or before May 26, 2009, provide

the court a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed.

Through her attorney of record, Rao responded with a letter requesting “the stopping of the appeal.”

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered June 10, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Raymond Irvine, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Teckmine Industries, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Teckmine Industries, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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 Teckmine Industries, Inc. Dated:  August 14, 2008  /s/ Raymond Irvine Raymond Irvine President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Teckmine Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Teckmine Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 18, 2015 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                     |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2012-B                          |

 

----