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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 23, 2016

a1116

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

153435

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153435

COA: 321243

St. Clair CC: 13-001935-FH

THOMAS JOSEPH AGAR,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part III of the Court of Appeals judgment 

entitled “DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.” People v Riley, 465 Mich 442, 447 (2001). We 

also REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that the Court 

of Appeals vacated the defendant’s convictions and ordered a new trial. We do not 

disturb the Court of Appeals determination that “[i]t was an abuse of discretion to deny 

the defendant access to an expert witness” under MCL 775.15. However, the error in 

denying funds may not have prejudiced the defendant, and, at this point in the 

proceedings, it would be premature to vacate the defendant’s convictions before the 

results of independent forensic analysis are known. We REMAND this case to the St. 

Clair Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.

 

Within 56 days of the date of this order, the trial court shall provide funds 

sufficient to permit the defendant to obtain his own expert on computer forensic analysis. 

Within 56 days of the provision of such funds, the defendant shall file a statement in the 

trial court indicating whether he will seek further relief under either MCL 775.15, the 

Due Process Clause of the US Constitution, or both based on the expert’s evaluation and, 

if so, shall attach an offer of proof indicating how the expert’s testimony would be 

material and favorable to the defense. The trial court may extend the time for filing this 

statement on good cause shown. Within 56 days of the filing of the statement, the trial 

court shall address in writing whether the absence of a defense expert sufficiently 

prejudiced the defendant such that a new trial is warranted.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, J. William Stapleton, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of HomeCity Financial Corporation, certify, that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Home City Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations, and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byotherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which the annual report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures asof a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “EvaluationDate”);and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmateriallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. Any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financialinformation;
17

 
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financialreporting.         /s/J. William Stapleton   J. William Stapleton   President, Chief Executive Officer and
Exhibit 32.1

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                            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 (the "Report") of China
Biopharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Chris Peng Mao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.

Date: August 14, 2006                    By: /s/ Chris Peng Mao
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Chris Peng Mao
                                             Chairman and
                                             Chief Executive Officer
# C_2014270EN.01000201.xml

| 19.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 August 2014

2014/C 270/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3383 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,22 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4555 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80020 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1633 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2107 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2315 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,900 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1883 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4354 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9014 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4360 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4559 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3728 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5766 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6659 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 361,82 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2015 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2267 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6210 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 638,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2246 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,429 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,2320 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,601 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0191 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4728 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,4350 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3383

JPY

Japanese yen

137,22

DKK

Danish krone

7,4555

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80020

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1633

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2107

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2315

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,900

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1883

RON

Romanian leu

4,4354

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9014

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4360

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4559

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3728

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5766

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6659

KRW

South Korean won

1 361,82

ZAR

South African rand

14,2015

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2267

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6210

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 638,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2246

PHP

Philippine peso

58,429

RUB

Russian rouble

48,2320

THB

Thai baht

42,601

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0191

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4728

INR

Indian rupee

81,4350

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 43986/43987

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JENNIFER NICOLE MAGILL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 791

Filed: November 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of six years, for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of 

age; unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of six 

years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years to run consecutively with 

the sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age; and a unified 

sentence of ten years, with five years determinate, for sexual exploitation of a child to run 

concurrently to the other charges, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 43986, Jennifer Nicole Magill pleaded guilty to sexual battery of a minor 

child sixteen or seventeen years of age, Idaho Code § 18-1508A, and sexual abuse of a child 

under the age of sixteen years, I.C. § 18-1506(1)(b). For each count, the district court imposed a 

unified sentence of fifteen years, with six years determinate, to run consecutively. In Docket No. 

43987. Magill pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child, I.C. § 18-1507(2)(1), and the 

district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with five years determinate, to run 
2

concurrently with the sentences in Docket No. 43986. Magill appeals, contending that her

sentences are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Magill’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00402-CR

MUQTASID ABDUL QADIR APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 0591998D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Muqtasid Abdul Qadir attempts to appeal from a yet-to-be-made 

ruling on what he calls his “Compulsory Counterclaim in the form of Writ in 

Replevin, Plaint in Replevin, Declaration in Replevin, Bond in Replevin, and 

Affidavit in Support.” On October 27, 2016, this court sent Qadir a letter 

informing him of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

the trial court had not entered any appealable orders and because we generally 

have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only from a judgment of 

conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 

161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We informed Qadir that unless he or 

any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal by November 7, 2016, we would dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

Qadir filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the 

appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 23, 2016
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2668 

To require the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth at the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide assistance relating to broadband access, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 5, 2021 

Mr. TESTER (for Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth 

at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide assistance relating to broadband 

access, 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. ASSISTANCE FOR STATE AND TRIBAL 

4 BROADBAND ACCESS PROGRAMS. 

5 Subsection (c) of the ACCESS BROADBAND Act 

6 (section 903 of division FF of the Consolidated Appropria7 tions Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260)) is amended by 

8 adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2668 IS

1 ‘‘(3) FUND.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There is established a 

3 fund within the National Telecommunications 

4 and Information Administration, which shall be 

5 managed by the Office, to provide assistance to 

6 States and Tribal governments to support of7 fices, agencies, or other entities that oversee 

8 broadband programs and broadband deploy9 ment in the State, with priority given to States 

10 that— 

11 ‘‘(i) do not have such an active office, 

12 agency, or entity; or 

13 ‘‘(ii) need to increase the capacity of 

14 such an office, agency, or entity. 

15 ‘‘(B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA16 TIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

17 such sums as may be necessary to the fund es18 tablished under subparagraph (A). 

19 ‘‘(4) TECHNICAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE.— 

20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Office shall pro21 vide technical and other assistance to States 

22 and Tribal governments— 

23 ‘‘(i) to support the expansion of 

24 broadband, with priority for expansion in 

25 rural and Tribal areas and States that 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2668 IS

1 consistent rate at the bottom of broadband 

2 access and deployment; and 

3 ‘‘(ii) regarding cybersecurity resources 

4 and programs available through Federal 

5 agencies, including the Election Assistance 

6 Commission, the Cybersecurity and Infra7 structure Security Agency, the Federal 

8 Trade Commission, and the National 

9 Science Foundation. 

10 ‘‘(B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA11 TIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

12 such sums as may be necessary to carry out 

13 this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**CERTIFICATION      OF **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (i) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for the fiscal quarter                ended September 30, 2006, and to which this certification is attached                as                Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |            |                                     |
|--------|-----------------|------------------------------------------|
|        | By:   | /s/                  Jay Sargeant        |
|   |  Name:     | Jay                Sargeant              |
|   | Title:          | Chief                  Executive Officer |
|   | Date:           | November                  20, 2006       |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.*

*This      certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated      by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933      or      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date      of      the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained      in such filing.*

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FERROFLUIDICS CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996
AND ITS CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 12/28 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000353286
<NAME> FERROFLUIDICS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,489,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,844,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   339,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,080,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,882,000
<PP&E>                                      18,804,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,360,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,284,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,225,000
<BONDS>                                      5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,301,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,434,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,284,000
<SALES>                                     15,598,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,598,000
<CGS>                                       10,843,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,843,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,348,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             199,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                208,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            184,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   184,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.03
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DAAA-09-02-D-0007 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58465 

Thomas Barrett, Esq. 

Chief Senior Counsel 

David Newsome, Jr., Esq. 

Senior Legal Counsel 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Douglas R. Jacobson, Esq. 

Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 

Samuel W. Morris, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Bloomington, MN 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute which is the subject of the appeal having been settled, the appeal is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement is 

not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be filed within 30 days 

of the date of this Order. 

Dated: 22 May 2017 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58465, Appeal of Kellogg 

Brown & Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 21.1     Subsidiaries of Oplink Communications, Inc.         Subsidiaries of Registrant Jurisdiction of Incorporation Subsidiary’s Business Name     Shanghai Oplink Communications, Inc. Shanghai, China Shanghai Oplink    Communications, Inc.     Zhuhai FTZ Oplink Communications, Inc. Zhuhai, China Zhuhai FTZ Oplink    Communications, Inc.     Zhuhai FTZ Oplink Optical Communications, Inc. Zhuhai, China Zhuhai FTZ Oplink Optical(formerly Zhuhai Oplink Communicaitons, Inc.,   Communications, Inc.located in Zhuhai, China)         Oplink Macau Commercial Services Company Macau, China Oplink Macau CommercialLimited   Services Company Limited     Accumux Technologies, Inc. California, US Accumux Technologies, Inc.     Cayman Oplink Communications, Inc. Cayman Islands, B.W.I. Cayman Oplink Communications, Inc.PO Box 309GT    Ugland House, South Church Street    George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands         King Galaxy International Limited British Virgin Islands King Galaxy International LimitedCommonwealth Trust Limited    P.O. Box 3321    Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.         F3 Inc. Taiwan, China F3 Inc.     Taiwan Oplink Communications, Inc. Taiwan, China Taiwan Oplink Communications, Inc.