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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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 8, 2011 

y0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

141968 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141968 

 COA: 299667 

Tuscola CC: 09-011204-FH 

SHAWN PATRICK JEFFERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Tuscola County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,140,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,268,065
<PP&E>                                         348,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                 208,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,677,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,275
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,551,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,677,460
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               283,632
<CGS>                                           90,434
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,238,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (864,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (864,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (864,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)




</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jeremiah Millan, Appellant, v Beatrice Vargas, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 849]

In related custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, R.), dated March 14, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied his petitions seeking a modification of custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that in determining the issue of parental custody of a child, the primary concern is the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). In determining whether a custody agreement should be modified, the paramount issue before the court is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a modification of custody is in the best interest of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Teuschler v Teuschler,*242 AD2d 289, 290 [1997]; *Kuncman v Kuncman,*188 AD2d 517, 518 [1992]). Because any custody determination necessarily depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the Family Court’s findings *(see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra).*Its findings “will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Kuncman v Kuncman, supra*at 518).

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court did not err in denying his petitions seeking modification of the existing custody order. The father failed to meet his burden of establishing a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests of the child. *603Since the Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record it will not be disturbed.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Accountants:

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 Optika Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-56501 and 333-42250) on Form S-8 of Optika Inc. of our report relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Optika Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of
the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears
in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K, of Optika Inc.

                                    KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 15, 2002
Feed Grains Database: Yearbook Tables

Note. Missing values indicate unreported values, discontinued series, or not yet released data.

Mkt year 1/ Qtr Beginning 

stocks Production Imports Total supply 2/

Food, 

alcohol, and 

industrial 

use

Only alcohol 

for fuel % Used

2006 1,967.16 10,534.87 11.98 12,514.01 3,466.50 2,119.49 0.20

2007 1,303.65 13,073.89 18 14,395.54 4,315.45 3,000.00 0.23

2008 1,624.15 12,199.91 15 13,839.06 5,311.70 4,000.00 0.33

0.16937

0.208398

0.289037

Data from cornusedforethanol file, custom queries from fe

2006 2119.49

2007 13038 3049.21 0.233871

2008 12101 3676.88 0.303849

2009 12921 4200 0.325052

2008MY Sep-Aug Exports, market year CornUnited States Million bushels 1857.561

2009MY Sep-Aug Exports, market year CornUnited States Million bushels 2050

Food, alcohol, and industrial use 2008MY Sep-Aug CornUnited States Million bushels 4930.728

Food, alcohol, and industrial use 2009MY Sep-Aug CornUnited States Million bushels 5457.3

Sources: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Crop Production and Grain Stocks; USDA, World Agricultural Outlook Board, World Supply and De

Table 4--Corn: Marketing year supply and disappe

Million bushels

1/ September-August. Latest data may be preliminary or projected.

2/ Totals may not add due to rounding.
Seed use Feed and 

residual use % Used

Total 

domestic 

use 2/

Exports % Used

Total 

disappearan

ce 2/

Ending 

stocks

23.76 0.13011703 5,594.74 0.53 9,085.00 2,125.37 0.20 11,210.37 1,303.65

22.2 0.102314613 5,998.74 0.46 10,336.39 2,435.00 0.19 12,771.39 1,624.15

23.3 0.109427037 5,350.00 0.44 10,685.00 2,000.00 0.16 12,685.00 1,154.06

0.447078 0.169839

0.416708 0.16915

0.386587 0.144518

orethanol file, custom queries from feed grains database on USDA website

5913 0.45352

5254 0.434179 1857.561 0.153505

5400 0.417924 2050 0.158656

cultural Outlook Board, World Supply and Demand Estimates; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

 4--Corn: Marketing year supply and disappearance

Million bushels
Order entered May 8, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00065
- CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. ELIANA SAUCEDO, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. WX13
- 90032
- U



### O RDER The clerk’s record filed in this case does not contain a copy of the trial court’s December 31, 2014 order granting the applicant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Instead, the clerk’s record contains a copy of the simila r order the trial court signed in Ex parte Ryan Edward
Schuller , cause no. 05

- 15

- 00064

- CR.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s December 31, 2014 order granting applicant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
# C_2005100EN.01003502.xml

| 26.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/35

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3727 — 3i/Berkenhoff)

(2005/C 100/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 23 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3727. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3727. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<PAGE>




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Year Ended December 31,
                                                     2001        2000       1999
                                                   -------     -------     -------
                                                (in thousands, except per share data)
BASIC
<S>                                                <C>         <C>         <C>
Income Before Cumulative Effect
of Accounting Change                               $ 1,626     $ 1,424     $   983
/ Weighted Average Shares                            2,610       2,604       2,645
---------------------------------                  -------     -------     -------
Per Share                                          $  0.62     $  0.55     $  0.37

Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change                  --          --         (57)
/ Weighted Average Shares                            2,610       2,604       2,645
---------------------------------                  -------     -------     -------
Per Share                                               --          --       (0.02)

Basic Earnings Per Share                           $  0.62     $  0.55     $  0.35
=================================                  =======     =======     =======


DILUTED

Income Before Cumulative Effect
of Accounting Change                               $ 1,626     $ 1,424     $   983
/ Weighted Average Shares                            2,613       2,604       2,650
---------------------------------                  -------     -------     -------
Per Share                                          $  0.62     $  0.55     $  0.37

Cumulative Effect of Accounting Change                  --          --         (57)
/ Weighted Average Shares                            2,613       2,604       2,650
---------------------------------                  -------     -------     -------
Per Share                                               --          --       (0.02)

Diluted Earnings Per Share                         $  0.62     $  0.55     $  0.35
=================================                  =======     =======     =======
</TABLE>




Notes:
   - Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect 11 for 10
stock splits in 2000 and 1999.

   - Where applicable, diluted share computations include the effects of
outstanding stock options.
# C_2005004EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 January 2005

(2005/C 4/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3183 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4400 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70390 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0339 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5498 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,15 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2535 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,58040 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,438 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,93 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4527 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6970 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4330 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1192 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 775 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,7800 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,620 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8450 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7314 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6224 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2754 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8909 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1766 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 395,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0519 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3183

JPY

Japanese yen

138,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4400

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70390

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0339

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5498

ISK

Iceland króna

83,15

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2535

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,58040

CZK

Czech koruna

30,438

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,93

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4527

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6970

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4330

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1192

ROL

Romanian leu

38 775

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,7800

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,620

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8450

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7314

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6224

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2754

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8909

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1766

KRW

South Korean won

1 395,95

ZAR

South African rand

8,0519

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
A P P E N D I X B

L I S T I N G O F G A P T E S T C O D E S I N A L P H A B E T I C A L O R D E R
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,754
<PP&E>                                       2,107,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                 947,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,381,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,648
<BONDS>                                        469,016
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,391
<OTHER-SE>                                     644,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,381,525
<SALES>                                        122,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,325
<CGS>                                           14,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (532)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,031
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,155
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,155
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JAMES BROWN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 546 EAL 2015** 

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
Exhibit 99.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 American Millennium
Corporation, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), James E. Hamilton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

June 23, 2003                         /s/ James E. Hamilton
                                          ---------------------
                                          James E. Hamilton
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO AMERICAN MILLENNIUM CORPORATION, INC. AND SUBSDIARIES AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY AMERICAN MILLENNIUM CORPORATION, INC. AND SUBSIDIAIRES AND FURNISHED
TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
•••

•

-ISI- NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

-

• • k ECIOR 1 February 1972

•

4 . a"•-• t • NEIMAN= FOR THE =UNMAN, U. 8. INTELLIGENCE BOARD

SUBJECT: USIB Guidance for the •

National Reconnaissance Program (UP)

REFERENCES: a. USIB-D.46.4/12, 1 March 1968

b. Memo for Molders of USIB-0-46.4/12,

10 larch 1970

I believe that the NRO can derive more benefits from

the annual update of USIB exam and PEOTINT requirements

if they are received in time to be considered at the

commencement of the 1RP budget cycle in mid-February.

Submission of a five-year guidance document by the end of

January each year would allow ample time for consideration

of any changes in the established requirements. The basic

guidance could appropriately reflect both near-term and

long-range functionally oriented requirements. The above

procedure is consistent with arrangements recently initiated

between the SIGINT Committee and the NRO.

In order to simplify the effort, only changes in the

projected intelligence requirements would need to be identified and the one year guidance currently furnished

separately would pe included in the five-year guidance

projection. •This procedure would not preclude the identification of new requirements at any time of the year as

intelligence needs change.

The fiscal calendars contained in the references are

no longer valid and should'be•resinded with adoption of

the revised statement of changes in requirements.

•

..VIORKING COPY

2,•:-MSECRET"
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004540
<NAME> AIRPLANES U.S. TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                6
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     10
<PP&E>                                              510
<DEPRECIATION>                                      139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 8
<BONDS>                                             382
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (146)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        381
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     19
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        10
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (3)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (3)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        

</TABLE>