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

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130911 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130911 

 COA: 261993 

Muskegon CC: 03-049495-FC

03-049062-FH 

JAMES A. SANDERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 29, 2005 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of 

Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005). 

s0920 

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. 

September 27, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,315
<SECURITIES>                                    14,861
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                       858
<INVENTORY>                                         91
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,539
<PP&E>                                           9,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,794
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,125
<SALES>                                          8,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,249
<CGS>                                            1,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    92
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,515
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,859
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56


</TABLE>
# C_2016081EN.01000201.xml

| 3.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/2

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.7724 — ASL/Arianespace)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 81/03)

On 26 February 2016, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7724 — ASL/Arianespace, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

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 Acrongenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ron Lizée, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
| Dated: | November 14, 2006 |
|--------|-------------------|

 

/s/ Ron Lizée                                            

Ron Lizée

Chief Financial Officer 

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 4.23

 

Power of Attorney

 

THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY (hereinafter, the “Power of Attorney”) is executed by Weijie MA (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) as of April 1, 2012 and issued to Xin ZHOU (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) (hereinafter, the “Entrusted Person”).

 

I, Weijie MA, hereby entrust the Entrusted Person with full representative power to exercise the following rights owned by me in the capacity of a shareholder of Beijing Jiajujiu E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “Company”) on my behalf:

 

(1)              As my representative, to propose to convene and attend shareholders’ meetings of the Company according to the articles of association of the Company;

 

(2)              As my representative, to exercise, on my behalf, voting rights on all matters requiring discussion or resolutions of the shareholders’ meetings of the Company, including without limitation, the appointment and election of the Company’s directors and other officers, who should be appointed and removed by the shareholders;

 

(3)              As my representative, to exercise other voting rights of a shareholder as specified in the articles of association of the Company (including any other shareholder voting rights as specified in the amended articles of association).

 

I hereby irrevocably confirm that this Power of Attorney shall continue to be valid until the Shareholder Voting Right Proxy Agreement executed by and between Beijing Maiteng Fengshun Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “WFOE”), the Company and the shareholders of the Company as of April 1, 2012 expires or is early terminated, unless the WFOE gives me a direction to replace the Entrusted Person.

 

Authorization is hereby made.

 

	
 
    	
Name: Weijie MA
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Weijie MA
    
	
 
    	
Date: April 1, 2012
Oats 2022

Planted Acres by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Acres

Not Estimated

< 500

500 - 999

1,000 - 2,499

2,500 - 4,999

5,000 - 9,999

10,000 +
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HENRY RICKY LANZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 270 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
----

**CERTIFICATION OF   CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER   PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Rajesh Raniga, Chief Financial Officer of EYI Industries,  Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that, to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,        for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, and to which this certification        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (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/ Rajesh Raniga*     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                         |
|   | Name:  | Rajesh Raniga           |
|   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  | November 22, 2004       |

*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.*

----
October 14, 2015 STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT A14-1852


### InrePetition for DisciplinaryAction against Dennis James Rutgers a MinnesotaAttorney, Registration No. 313142.
ORDER Oau: OF API'B.lA1ECcuns

The Director ofthe Office ofLawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Dennis James Rutgers committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline. After respondent filed an answer to the petition, we referredthe matterto areferee. The referee made fmdings offact, conclusions oflaw, and a recommendation for discipline. Specifically, the referee concluded that respondent violated Minn. R
. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.15(b), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d) by failing to account for and timely disburse the proceeds of the sale of a family farm that respondent held in his trust account, communicate with a client regarding the family farm sale's proceeds, provide notice of his payment ofattorney fees, answer a complaint filed against him in district court, and timely pay a judgment entered against him. The referee further concluded that respondent violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3; 1.4(a)(3) and (4) by neglecting a bankruptcy matter and failing to communicate with that client aboutthe bankruptcy. The referee also concluded that respondent violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) aDd Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), by failing to cooperate in 1disciplinary investigations. Finally, the referee concluded that one aggravating factor
was present. The referee recommended that respondent be indefmitely suspended with
no rightto petition for reinstatement for 1year. Because no party ordered a transcript ofthe proceedings before the referee, the referee's findings and conclusions are conclusive. 

### See Rule 14(e), RLRP. We issued a briefmg schedule. Respondent informed the court that he would not be filing a brief. 

### In his brief, the Director recommends that the court impose the 1-year suspension recommended bythereferee. We have independently reviewed therecord and concludethat a 1-year suspension is the appropriate discipline forrespondent's misconduct. Basedupon all the files, records, andproceedingsherein, IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat: 1. Respondent Dennis James Rutgers is indefmitely suspended from the practice oflaw, effective 14 days from the date ofthefiling ofthis order, with no right to petition forreinstatement for 1year. 2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional responsibility portion ofthe state bar examination and satisfaction of continuing legal educationrequirements pursuanttoRule 18(e), RLPR. 3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuanttoRule 24, RLPR.
2Dated: October 14, 2015 

### BYTHE COURT:

AssociateJustice

3
#### Ludlow *against*Hackett.

Where a defendant obtains a discharge under the *oxtifor the relief of debtors mth respect to the imprisonment qf their persons,*(i ¿V. *R. L.*348) or under the act *to abolish ' AV\''n ment for*debt, *in ceriam*cases) passed *ipril*7, 181b ,v.v>. 42. ch _ iOl) the plaintiff may discontinue his suit without Sutifiie p?ain-tiffknowmg of the defendant s discharge,proceeds in the cause,hemust, if he after-wards disco»-cosirkccrang charge*6 dls’

THE defendant was' arrested in *May,*1819, at the suit of the plaintiff, for 2,000 dollars ; and in *July*following, was regularly discharged, under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt, in certain cases, passed *April*7, 1819. (sess. 42. 101.) After the discharge, the attorney for the plaintiff entered the default of the defendant for not pleading, and af-terwards entered an interlocutory judgment, and had the damages assessed, on a.writ of inquiry. The inquest was set aside in *May*term with costs, on the ground that the damages assessed wereona partnership account of the plaintiff and one *Lambert,*in *June,*the plaintiff’s attorney entered a rule fora discontinuance, and gave-notice thereof to ^le defendant’s attorney, on the ground of the defendant’s discharge as an insolvent debtor under the said act, but re- ^ ° 7 fused to pay costs* The defendant’s attorney then gave no-*i t*. *J*° tice, that unless the plaintiff proceeded to execute a writ of . . . , . , . . . , , , . inquiry in the cause, in thirty days, a motion would be made for judgment of *nonpros. A*motion was accordingly made for a judgment of *non pros.*

*T. A. Emmet,*for the defendant.

*253
      *Garr,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

In *Heffernan*v. Brown, we decided, at the last term, that where a defendant obtains a discharge under the act giving relief in cases of imprisonment, the plaintiff might discontinue his suit without costs, in the same manner as if the defendant had been discharged from all his debts under the insolvent act. If the plaintiff, knowing of the defendant’s discharge, will, nevertheless, go on with the suit, he must, if he afterwards discontinues, pay costs. Let the plaintiff have leave to discontinue his suit on payment of the costs of suit since the defendant obtained his discharge under the late act, and up to the time of the entry of the rule for a discontinuance, exclusive of the costs of the application made at the last term.

Rule accordingly.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00138-CV

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM, an Agency of the City of San Antonio ("SAWS"),

Appellant

v.

MATIRAAN, LTD., and Marylyn House,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-08486

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due March 14, 2022, but was not filed. On March 

17, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension until April 

18, 2022 to file the record. After consideration, we GRANT the request and ORDER the court 

reporter to file the record by April 18, 2022.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
SC WC

- 14

- 000 0647

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., solely as nominee, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

SHARON KEHAULANI WISE and BLOSSOM ILIMA NIHIPALI, Petitioners/Defendants

- Appellants,

and

EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Respondent/Defendant

- Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 14

- 000 0647 ; CIV

. NO. 09

- 1

- 1064 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama , Acting C.J.
, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ. , a nd Circuit Judge Kim , in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused )

Petitioner s /Defendant s

- Appellant s Sharon Kehaulani

Wise and Blossom Ilima Nihipali’s Application for Writ of Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000647 18-SEP-2015 08:54 AM2 Certiorari, filed on August 10 , 2015
, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i
, September 1 8 , 2015

.
Gary Victor Dubin
, Frederick J. Arensmeyer , and Richard T. Forrester for petitioner s

Ben Suter for respondent /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Glenn J. Kim
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Simon Property Group, L.P. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/David SimonDavid Simon
Chief Executive Officer
March 29, 2005                 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/Stephen E. SterrettStephen E. Sterrett
Chief Financial Officer
March 29, 2005 |  | 

124

---



QuickLinks
[KCAP Financial letterhead]


 


April 22, 2013


 


Mr. Daniel Gilligan


KCAP Financial, Inc.


295 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor


New York, NY 10017


 


Dear Dan:


 


This letter constitutes an amendment to
your employment agreement with Katonah Debt Advisors, L.L.C. and Kohlberg Capital Corporation, now known as KCAP Financial, Inc.,
dated June 27, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”), pursuant to Section 11(a) of the Employment Agreement. Except as
specifically stated herein, the terms and conditions described in your Employment Agreement will remain in effect.


 


Effective as of the date first written above,
Section 4(c) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof.


 


If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please
sign this letter in the space provided and return it to me. We will provide a countersigned copy for your records.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ Dayl W. Pearson
	 	 
	 	Dayl W. Pearson
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


 


 


Accepted by:


 


/s/ Daniel Gilligan





 



Daniel Gilligan


 


Date: April 22, 2013
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of -- )

Po ASBCA No. 60656

Under Contract No. W91B4M-09-C-7355 }

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 7
EO

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.
Army Chief Trial Attorney
CPT Douglas A. Reisinger, JA
Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: 2 December 2016

oe,

MARK N. STEMPLER”
Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman

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. 60656, Appeal ED
rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN
Recorder, Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals
..... _.. 1')fPS~ET• 

Office Memorandum • UNITED sTATEs GOVERNMENT 

TO 1 Gen. Can:lne COPY DATB 11 J'CJ'L S2 

PJLOM RADM Wenger 

SUBJECT Release of the CCM to Turkey for Diplomatic Communications 

I concur in Friedman 1s recommendation (para. 2 of his mdmo attached 

hereto). It is noted that the memo for record (also attached) states, 

However, that CCM is now ltover-committed11 • I think the availabihty question should be definitely settled. 

Returned on 7/16/52 

State al.ready taki:ng action 

(Gen. Canine) 

/s/ JIU 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-02-2014 

ursuantto E.O. 13526
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00435-CV

Everett W. GREGORY Jr. and Marcia Gregory,

Appellants

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Jesse R. Mendoza,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI05064

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file its brief is granted in part. Appellee’s 

brief must be filed on or before January 6, 2017. FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE 

DISFAVORED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
COL_Exhibit_10-n-2_3.31.2013






Exhibit 10-n-2


Schedule of Executives of the Company who are a party to the Change of Control Agreement:


Three-Year Agreement


		
	1.
	Clayton M. Jones


		
	2.
	Barry M. Abzug


		
	3.
	Patrick E. Allen


		
	4.
	John-Paul E. Besong


		
	5.
	Gary R. Chadick


		
	6.
	Bruce M. King


		
	7.
	Ronald W. Kirchenbauer1 


		
	8.
	Nan Mattai


		
	9.
	Robert K. Ortberg


		
	10.
	Kent L. Statler


		
	11.
	Robert A. Sturgell






Two-Year Agreement


		
	1.
	David H. Brehm


		
	2.
	Philip J. Jasper


		
	3.
	Colin R. Mahoney


		
	4.
	Martha L. May


		
	5.
	Marsha A. Schulte


		
	6.
	Douglas E. Stenske










 1Set to expire upon Mr. Kirchenbauer's retirement on or about April 30, 2013.