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

t1130

Order 

Clerk

December 7, 2016

153586

SHAWN M. WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153586

COA: 330261

MCAC: 12-000131

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2016 order 

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.
EXHIBIT 21



Subsidiaries of NeoMedia Technologies,
Inc.



|                                                |  | State or    |  |         
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------- |  | --------
|                                                |  | Country of  |  |         
|Subsidiary Name                                 |  | Incorp.     |  | Status  
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Europe GmbH                            |  | Germany     |  | Active  
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Migration, Inc.                        |  | Delaware    |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Micro Paint Repair, Inc.               |  | Nevada      |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Technologies de Mexico, S. A. de C. V. |  | Mexico      |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Migration de Mexico, S. A. de C. V.    |  | Mexico      |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Technologies de Guatemala, S. A.       |  | Guatemala   |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|"NeoMedia" EDV – GmbH                           |  | Austria     |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Technologies UK Limited                |  | UK          |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Technologies Holding Company, B.V.     |  | Netherlands |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Technologies of Canada, Inc.           |  | Canada      |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Technologies do Brasil Ltda            |  | Brazil      |  | Inactive
|                                                |  |             |  |         
|NeoMedia Tech, Inc.                             |  | Delaware    |  | Inactive
II 

Calendar No. 148 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3007 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

to extend the discretionary spending limits. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2021 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

OCTOBER 20, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending 

limits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING 

4 LIMITS. 

5 Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emer6 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) is 

7 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3007 PCS

1 (1) in paragraph (7)(B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; and 

3 (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(9) for fiscal year 2022— 

6 ‘‘(A) for the revised security category, 

7 $684,930,000,000 in new budget authority; and 

8 ‘‘(B) for the revised nonsecurity category, 

9 $639,030,000,000 in new budget authority; 

10 ‘‘(10) for fiscal year 2023— 

11 ‘‘(A) for the revised security category, 

12 $698,628,600,000 in new budget authority; and 

13 ‘‘(B) for the revised nonsecurity category, 

14 $651,810,600,000 in new budget authority; and 

15 ‘‘(11) for fiscal year 2024, and each fiscal year 

16 thereafter— 

17 ‘‘(A) for the revised security category, the 

18 baseline amount of new budget authority esti19 mated for the revised security category for such 

20 fiscal year by the Office of Management and 

21 Budget in accordance with section 257; and 

22 ‘‘(B) for the revised nonsecurity category, 

23 the baseline amount of new budget authority es24 timated for the revised nonsecurity category for 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3007 PCS

1 such fiscal year by the Office of Management 

2 and Budget in accordance with section 257;’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 148 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3007 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

tionary spending limits. Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discreOCTOBER 20, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Salameh, President of PLX Technology, Inc.,certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form
10-Q of PLX Technology, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 3, 2003





/s/ Michael J. Salameh	   Michael J. Salameh
   President(Principal Executive Officer)

---
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pamela Angell, individually and as the :

Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas :

W. Bauer, Jr., deceased, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

James F. Dereno, Ross Township, and :

West View Borough : No. 458 C.D. 2015

O R D E R

NOW, April 28, 2016

, upon consideration of appellee Rose Township’s

application for en banc rearg ument and appellee West View Borough’s application for

reargument en banc and appellants ’ answer in response thereto , the application s are

denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

President Judge
#### Brewster *against*Van Ness.

A sheriff is bound to pay over - to the plaintiff, without any demand or request for that purpose, money levied or* execution, or he will be lia'» ble to an attachment. It; is not sufficient to return that he has the money in his hands, subject to the plain* tiff’s order.

*R. SEDGWICK*moved for an attachment against the defendant, late sheriff of *Saratoga,*for not paying over to the plaintiff, money levied and received by him on a *tesl.ji. fa.*It appeared that the sheriff had made a return to the execution, that on the 25th of *October,*1819, he levied 146 dollars and 48 cents, with interest from the 20th of *November,*1818, and had the money in his hands, subject to the plaintiff’s order; and that the money had not been paid over to the plaintiff. The counsel for the defendant objected, that the plaintiff ought to have applied to the sheriff for the money before he moved for an attachment; that the return made by the sheriff was a sufficient compliance with the exigency of the writ.

*Per Curiam.*

The sheriff was bound either to pay over the money to the plaintiff, without any previous demand tipon him for that purpose, or to have paid it into Court.

*134The *plaintiffmay*take a rule, that the defendant forthwith pay over t0 plaintiff the amount levied on the execution, together with the costs of this application, or that an. attachment issue against him.

Rule accordingly.
#### Commonwealth McGarey v. Balaban

*265
      *Herbert*V. *Giobbi,*for petitioner.

*Dominick A. Lockwood,*for respondents.

March 23, 1984

GRIFO, J.

Petitioner, the former husband of Debra McGarey and Jill Balaban, became disabled and was awarded social security disability benefits. Each of his two children by each former wife was also awarded benefits in the form of both a lump sum payment of past benefits and monthly payments for current benefits. The difficulty between the parties is that the lump sum payments represent a retroactive award of benefits during a period when petitioner continued to make support payments under this court’s order to each child’s mother. Petitioner claims that there has been an overpayment or a double payment to each former wife, and requests restitution.

The legal issue presented is whether respondents are entitled to retain all the monies paid to them by petitioner as well as the lump sum social security benefits. The court finds that the answer is in the affirmative.

The Social Security Act, Title 42, U.S. Code § 402(d)(1) provides that every dependent child of an individual who is entitled to social security benefits shall be entitled to a child’s insurance benefit. The benefit enures directly to the child, notwithstanding the prerequisite status of the parent. No indices of the father’s ownership ever attaches to these funds. Fuller v. Fuller, 49 Ohio App. 2d 223, 360 NE 2d 357 (1976).

Furthermore, under 20 C.F.R., §404.2035, the mother is receiving the benefit checks as the representative payee of her child. In this capacity, the *266mother is required to apply the benefit checks toward the current maintenance of the child. Moreover, she may not be required to use benefit payments to satisfy a debt of the child if the debt arose prior to the first month for which payments are certified to the representative payee. 20 C.F.R., §404.2040.

Additionally, 20 C.F.R., §404.2045 states that if payments are not needed for the child’s current maintenance or reasonably foreseeable needs, they shall be conserved or invested on behalf of the child. Consequently, the mother is prohibited from being required to use benefits to satisfy prior child support payments since these accrued before the first month for which payments were certified to the mother.

Wherefore, we enter the following

ORDER OF COURT*

And now, this March 23, 1984, petitioner’s petition is denied and dismissed.

This order is final pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910. ll(k).
#### Sheesley et ux. v. Harrisburg Railways Company.

*Practice, C. P.*— Trespass—New *trial*— FaAlure *of plaintiff to prove*case— *Motion for judgment n. o. v.*

1. The right of the court to order a new trial of its own motion is indisputable.

2. In an action of trespass for the death of a child, where the plaintiff has failed to prove either that the defendant was negligent or that the death resulted from injuries received, and where the defendant has asked for judgment *n. o.*«. because of the failure of the plaintiff to prove his case, the court, believing both matters susceptible of proof, and fearing that not to do so would work a great injustice to plaintiff, will, of its own motion, order a new trial.

Motion for judgment *non obstante veredicto.*C. P. Dauphin Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 339.

*Harvey E. Knupp,*for plaintiffs.

*Charles L. Bailey, Jr.,*and *George F. Lumb,*for defendants.

Dec. 9, 1921.

Wickersham, J.,

It did not appear from the evidence presented by the plaintiffs at the trial that their child, who was injured, died because of the injuries sustained, as it was claimed, because of the negligence of the defendant in operating one of its street cars carelessly, recklessly and negligently; furthermore, it did not appear from the plaintiffs’ evidence how far away from the child the street car was at the time the mother came upon the porch and saw her child sitting upon one of the tracks of the defendant company, which said car afterwards ran over and injured it. Without this evidence it was impossible for the jury to find that the defendant was negligent in the operation of its car, which resulted in injury to the plaintiffs’ child.

The defendant made a motion for a compulsory non-suit, which we declined. The verdict of the jury being in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, counsel for the defendant have filed a motion for judgment in its favor *non obstante veredicto.*We believe both of the matters about which the defendant complains, to wit, the failure of the plaintiffs to prove that their child died because of injuries resulting from the negligence of the defendant, and that the defendant actually was negligent, are susceptible of proof, and now to enter judgment in favor of the defendant *non obstante veredicto*would, we fear, work a great injustice to the plaintiffs. The right of the court to order a new trial of its own motion is indisputable. It is one of the essential functions of the judge sitting with a jury. If the court conceive a doubt that justice is done, it is never too late to grant a new trial, but not on the application of the party: Com. *v.*Gabor, 209 Pa. 201.

In order, therefore, that justice may be done, the motion of the defendant for judgment *non obstante veredicto*is overruled and a new trial is hereby granted. From William Jenkins Wilcox, Harrisburg, Pa.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEROME BURNAM,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 342 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
12:00 P.M.

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

April Crop Production

Executive Summary

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

April 12, 2016
USDA-NASS

4-12-16

Field Crops Fruit & Nuts Specialty Crops

Citrus

Contents
USDA-NASS

4-12-16

Objective Surveys 

(Size and Drop) Fruit Maturity Row Count

Survey Type Field Observations Laboratory Tests Field Observations

Crops Included Late Oranges Late Oranges Oranges

Grapefruit

Late Tangerines

Tangelos

Sample

Size

450 groves 81 samples 82,425 unharvested

rows 

Collection 

Period

Mar 17 - 25 Mar 29 - 30 Mar 29 - 30

Test 

Period

Apr 1

Survey Overview

Florida Citrus
USDA-NASS

4-12-16

April 2016 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit April Previous Previous

2016 Forecast Season 

Production

Oranges Mil Tons 5.59 +4.3 -12.3

Grapefruit Thou Tons 819 +1.5 -8.0

Lemons Thou Tons 900 +4.2 -0.4

Tangelos Thou Tons 17.6 -2.5 -41.5

Tangerines & 

Mandarins Thou Tons 947 +4.4 +10.8
USDA-NASS

4-12-16

Release Date Report Title

April 22 Cattle on Feed

April 26 Floriculture Crops

April 29 Agricultural Prices

May 2

CAIR: Cotton System

CAIR: Fats & Oils

CAIR: Flour Millings

CAIR: Grain Crushings

May 10 Cotton Ginnings - Annual

Crop Production

Upcoming Reports
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@nass.usda.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The amounts disclosed in the financial data summary should be read in
conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          27,805
<SECURITIES>                                    94,204
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,882
<PP&E>                                         265,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,377
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,284
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,062
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (523)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (435)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (435)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4


                            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 on Form 10-K of Panavision Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bobby G. Jenkins,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of 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:


          (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.



      /S/ BOBBY G. JENKINS
     ---------------------------
          Bobby G. Jenkins
          Executive Vice President and
          Chief Financial Officer
          March 28, 2003

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
     of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 13.2**
**Section 906 Certification**
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of The Governor and Company ofthe Bank of Ireland, a chartered corporation incorporated under the laws of Ireland (“Bank ofIreland”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 March 2005 (the “Report”) of 2005 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Bank of Ireland.       Date:
Exhibit 32.1

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



         In  connection  with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Northeast   Mortgage
Corporation  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Brian Rogerson, President 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


/s/    Brian Rogerson
Brian Rogerson
President
(Principal Executive Officer)


May 14, 2004


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
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.