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.

 December 7, 2016

s1130

Order 

Clerk

December 7, 2016

153621

CHRISTOPHER KAPLAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153621

COA: 325246

Alpena CC Family Division:

10-003705-DM

NANCY HENDRICKS, f/k/a NANCY KAPLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2016 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0021. TRINTEC PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC v. 106 OLDE

HICKORY CIRCLE et al.

Upon consideration of an “Amended EmergencyMotion toCancel Foreclosure

Sale,” filed by Crandall O. Postell, it is ordered that the motion is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 02, 2016

12/02/2016
#### Commonwealth v. Stewart

*702May 16, 1984

*Douglas C. Rogers,*assistant district attorney, for the Commonwealth.

*John Alden,*for defendant.

KELLY, *J.,*

Petitioner, Michael Stewart, was convicted of robbery, theft by unlawful taking and conspiracy on June 10, 1982 and sentenced to seven to fourteen years imprisonment. In his petition before the court he is seeking the transcript of the sentencing hearing of Richard Trader who entered pleas of guilty and testified against the petitioner. Petitioner argues that he has a right to this transcript because it may reveal an agreement between the district attorney and Richard Trader.

A defendant does have the right to a transcript or other equivalent picture of the proceedings in his own case. This is founded on his right to appeal, because the transcript is necessary to prepare and prosecute an appeal. Commonwealth v. Goldsmith, 452 Pa. 22, 304 A.2d 478 (1973); Commonwealth v. Smith, 285 Pa.Super. 460, 427 A.2d 1378 (1981).

A defendant does not have such a right to the transcripts of proceedings in which he is not defendant. It may also be noted that the agreement between the district attorney’s office and Richard Trader was fully explored by petitioner’s counsel during his cross-examination of Richard Trader.

Furthermore, we take judicial notice of the fact that Richard Trader is once again in the criminal system, Nos. 106-84, 242-84. It would not be in his best interest to have such a document in the hands of another inmate in the state prison system.

For all the above reasons the petition is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-17-2015]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 127--West Columbia, South Carolina; 
Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Isola USA Corporation 
(Dielectric Prepreg and Copper-Clad Laminate); Ridgeway, South Carolina

    The Richland-Lexington Airport District, Columbia Metropolitan 
Airport, grantee of FTZ 127, submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Isola USA Corporation 
(Isola) located in Ridgeway, South Carolina. The notification 
conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 
CFR 400.22) was received on March 17, 2015.
    The Isola facility is located within Site 4 of FTZ 127. The 
facility is used to produce customized dielectric prepreg and copper-
clad laminate sheets used by its customers to fabricate multilayer 
printed circuit boards. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity 
would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and 
components and specific finished products described in the submitted 
notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the 
FTZ Board.
    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Isola from customs 
duty payments on the foreign-status material used in export production. 
On its domestic sales, Isola would be able to choose the duty rates 
during customs entry procedures that apply to customized dielectric 
prepreg and copper-clad laminate sheets (duty rates--4.2% and 3%, 
respectively) for foreign-status electrical grade woven fiberglass 
rolls and bonding prepreg (duty rates--7.3% and 4.2%, respectively). 
Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-
status production equipment.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 13, 2015.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Diane Finver at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82c6ebe3ece7acc4ebecf4e7f0c2f6f0e3e6e7ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a78a828d86cda58a8d958691a39791828786cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: March 27, 2015.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07718 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00695-CV

John M. DONOHUE,

Appellant

v.

Sergeant Jose HERNANDEZ, Deputy Matt Krueger, Deputy Birdie Tyler, and Denise Martinez,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-003-CCL

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial 

court’s order granting Denise Martinez’s plea to the jurisdiction, and REMAND this part of the 

case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED in all other 

respects.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cloud Medical Doctor SoftwareCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael De La Garza, Chief Executive 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 to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

By /s/ Michael De La Garza

Michael De La Garza

Chairmen, Chief Executive Officer, President

December 1, 2014
The H onorable Michael James Davis, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of Minnesota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2625

___________ Gary Lloyd Bruce, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 22, 1998 Filed: January 29, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Lloyd Bruce appeals the District Court & s denial of his motion under 1 Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to set aside a previous order of the Court . After carefully reviewing the record and the parties & briefs, we affirm the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Francis C. Heil

Senior Attorney

Lega l

1101 17 th St NW

Suite 600

Washington DC 20036

202

- 496

- 5642 Office

francis.heil@aa.com October 23, 2013

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, Application for Exemption ( DFW

– Shang h ai )

,

DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 01 87

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

American Airlines has completed its poll of the carriers served with the captioned application we

filed on October 17 , 2013, and th ere are no objections. Accordingly, we request approval on an

expedited basis.

Respectfully submitted,

Francis C. Heil

cc: Docket Branch

Service list2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following

persons:

howard.kass@usairways.com

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

sametta.c.ba r nett@ delta.com

dan.weiss@untited.com

k arine

. faden@un ited.com

____________________ FRANCIS C. HEIL

October 23, 2013
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 
 AMENDMENT TO SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS LIMITED 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 2008
SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN 
 On August 13, 2010, the Company’s Board of Directors approved an amendment to Section 3.1(a) of the
Plan. On September 13, 2011, the Company’s stockholders approved the following amendment to Section 3.1(a) of the Plan. 

“Subject to the provisions of Article 8 and Section 3.1(b), the aggregate number of Shares which may be issued or transferred pursuant to
Awards under the Plan is 3,000,000.”
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 filing of
  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the Report) of Moventis Capital,
  Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006, Walter Kloeble,
  Chief Financial 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

|Dated: May 19, 2006 | /s/ WALTER
      KLOEBLE
|------------------- | ------------------------
|                    | Walter Kloeble,         
|                    | Chief Financial Officer 

---
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 5, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RYAN K. SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JIM FARRIS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-5115

(D.C. No. 4:13-CV-00465-CVE-TLW)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before GORSUCH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

At first Ryan Smith chose to plead guilty in Oklahoma state court to

charges stemming from his participation in an armed robbery. But then he sought

leave to withdraw his plea. The state trial court denied the request and so did the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Unsuccessful in state court, Mr. Turner

turned to federal court, seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But after

considering the state court record, the district court held that it could lawfully

provide no relief to Mr. Smith either, and it denied him a certificate of

appealability (“COA”). Now before this court, Mr. Smith renews his request for a

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
COA in order to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition. We

of course may only issue a COA if Mr. Smith first makes a “substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right,” such that “reasonable jurists would find

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

We do not believe that standard met here. Mr. Smith identifies three claims

that, he says, merit a COA: ones alleging violations of double jeopardy,

ineffective assistance of counsel, and an unconstitutionally excessive sentence. 

But in a careful and thorough seventeen page opinion, the district court explained

the difficulties with Mr. Smith’s arguments on each of these scores. And after

conducting our independent review we are unable to see how a reasonable jurist

could doubt the correctness of any of these dispositions. Indeed, we discern no

way we might improve on the district court’s analysis and so adopt it as our own. 

To be sure, in addition to the matters he raised in the district court which that

court addressed, Mr. Smith also seeks to raise certain entirely new issues before

this court. But following our general practice we decline to consider new issues

raised for the first time in a COA application to this court. See United States v.

Moya, 676 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2012).

The application for a COA and the motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis are denied and this appeal is dismissed. Mr. Smith is reminded of his

- 2 -
obligation to pay the filing fee in full.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 3 -
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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 ("Report"), the undersigned
certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: April 15, 2009

By: /s/ JASON MEYERS
--------------------
Co-Chief Executive 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


<PAGE>


                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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 ("Report"), the undersigned
certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: April 15, 2009


By:    /s/ Debi Kokinos
---    ----------------
Chief Financial 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed December 2, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00901-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. AND K.C., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-16417 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Appellant has filed a November 8, 2016 unopposed first amended motion to dismiss the 

appeal. We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

We DENY AS MOOT appellant’s November 9, 2016 unopposed motion to extend the 

time to file a nunc pro tunc sealing order. 

160901F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. AND K.C., 

CHILDREN 

No. 05-16-00901-CV 

 On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-16417. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee QC recover her costs of this appeal from appellant IC. 

Judgment entered December 2, 2016
Exhibit 23.2

   CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Forms S-3 (No. 333-36026,  No. 333-64536,  No. 333-74753,  No. 333-76780, No.
333-100392,  No. 333-102837, No. 333-108778, No. 333-104791, No. 333-112165, and
No. 333-121876) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-38506,  No. 333-32545, No. 333-65916, No.
333-65928,  No. 333-102744,  No. 333-116328 and No. 333-106922) of Cardima, Inc.
of our report dated  February 18, 2005,  relating to the 2004 and 2003 financial
statements and schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. Our report contains an
explanatory  paragraph  regarding the  Company's  ability to continue as a going
concern.

/s/    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

San Francisco, California

May 4, 2006
Exhibit
32.1


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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Sandro
Natale, Chief Executive 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
Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated:
      June 8, 2009
                /s/
      Sandro NataleName:  Sandro
      NataleTitle:
      President  & Chief Executive
  Officer


1
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2185

___________

Sally Harrison, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: March 30, 1999

Filed: April 1, 1999 

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sally Harrison appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment affirming

the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny Harrison's applications for

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the decision of the

Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and Harrison is not disabled.

Because an extended opinion would serve no useful purpose in this fact-intensive case,

we affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the amended Quarterly Report of  Accessory  Specialists
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March  31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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 the Report fairly presents,  in  all
          material   respects,  the  financial  condition  and   results   of
          operations of the Company.




                              Anthony N. DeMint
                              President and Chief Accounting Officer
                              August 28, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                     1,350
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              6,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                 225
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           8,115
<PP&E>                                     7,991
<DEPRECIATION>                             3,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            12,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      8,568
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  25,255
<OTHER-SE>                               (21,994)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              12,630
<SALES>                                   23,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          23,478
<CGS>                                     19,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             19,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          15,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             547
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (121)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (11,495)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (11,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             (11,495)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (1.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (1.34)
        

</TABLE>