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

d1130

Order 

Clerk

December 7, 2016

153053

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153053

COA: 329299

Wayne CC: 11-006975-FC

THOMAS JEROME HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 25, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FLAVIO B. SOUZA-CAMPOS,

Appellant,

v.

ANALAY SOUZA-CAMPOS,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2635

[November 4, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael Davis, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-14915 FMCE 

(38).

Cynthia J. Dienstag of Cynthia J. Dienstag, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Lane Weinbaum of Weinbaum P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, ARTAU, JJ., and HARPER, BRADLEY, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50472 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REYNALDO LEOS GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant.

***************************

___________________ No. 96-50559 Summary Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANK MATHIS; TROY MATHIS, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. SA-95-CR-148-4 & SA-95-CR-148-6

- - - - - - - - - - December 19, 1997 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.Nos. 96-50472 & 96-50559 -2-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. PER CURIAM: * Reynaldo Leos Galindo, Frank Mathis, and Troy Mathis were charged in a superseding indictment, along with nine other individuals, for various drug offenses. After their motions to suppress wiretap evidence were denied, Galindo entered a conditional guilty plea to count 2 of a superseding indictment, which charged him with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting; Frank Mathis entered a conditional guilty plea to a superseding information, which charged him with possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute; and Troy Mathis entered a conditional guilty plea to a superseding information, which charged him with use of a communication device to facilitate a drug trafficking felony. The orders authorizing the wiretaps in this case were predicated upon representations in affidavits of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent William Furay. Appellants argue that the affidavits contain false statements of fact and were based upon stale information. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the lack of corroborating information in the affidavits, they argue, the affidavits failed to establish that there was probable cause for the wiretaps. Appellants contend that the affidavits failed to establish the necessity of the proposed wiretaps. Appellants contend that the applications andNos. 96-50472 & 96-50559 -3- supporting documents were technically deficient. Appellants contend that interception of communications continued after the expiration of the authorized period. Appellants contend that this requirement was violated in two instances. Appellants contend that the Government continued to intercept communications long after the achievement of its objectives. Finally, appellants contend that the cumulative effect of the errors and violations in obtaining and executing the wiretap orders required suppression of the wiretap evidence. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record. Essentially for reasons stated by the district court, see United States v. Mathis et al. , No. SA-95-CR-148 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 1996), we hold that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the wiretap evidence. The judgments are
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

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


         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Par 3 Services,  Inc., on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2001 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,
Daniel L. Hodges,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal  Accounting  Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
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.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07792]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 1, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, 
Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. PacWest Bancorp, and Pacific Western Bank, both in Los Angeles, 
California; merge with Square 1 Financial, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire Square 1 Bank, both in Durham, North Carolina.
    In connection with this application, Applicants have also applied 
to acquire Square 1 Venture Management 1, L.P., Durham, North Carolina, 
and thereby engage in funds management, investment advisory, and 
private placement activities, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6)(i), 
(b)(7)(i) and (b)(7)(iii), respectively.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 1, 2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-07792 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,680,755
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      14,585
<MORTGAGE>                                     615,186
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,538
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               7,691,241
<CASH>                                          23,090
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              17,535
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         529,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,719,353
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              7,390,991
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  12,221
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          282,026
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                173,088
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          214,791
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,071
<OTHER-SE>                                     702,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,719,353
<PREMIUMS>                                     164,197
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            540,072
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,244
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,467
<BENEFITS>                                     442,428
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     67,780
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            93,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 97,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             66,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,654
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.20
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
May 1, 2012



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHARLES F. SATTERFIE LD , Appellant

NO S . 14

- 11

- 00665

- CR

14

- 11

- 00666

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED , that the appellant pay all costs expended in this

app eal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 2.125 (2                    1/4                    ) percent for the April-June quarter of FY 2015.                

                    Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or                           ( print page 18923)                        laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.                

Linda S. Rusche,

Director, Office of Financial Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2015-08039 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
#### Foxlea Enterprises, Inc. v. Powell

*John B. Manche,*for plaintiff.

*F. R. Martsolf,*for defendant.

September 23, 1977

RAMBO, *J.,*

On October 21, 1975, Kathy N. Powell contracted with Foxlea Enterprises, Inc., for the purchase of real property in New Cumberland, which included a house then under construction. The contract stated that settlement would be on or about December 15, 1975. The parties did not settle on that date, but on De*507cember 13, 1975, they entered into a pre-settlement lease and defendant occupied the house. By the end of May in 1976, settlement had not occurred. Defendant vacated the premises at that time.

Plaintiff sued for breach of the sale contract the following November. In response defendant moved to strike the complaint and/or have a more specific complaint. Defendant also demurred on the ground that the complaint fáiled to state a valid cause of action. Because we dispose of the preliminary motions on the basis of the demurrer, discussion is limited to the latter proposition.

The complaint does fail to state a cause of action. In assumpsit, if there is a condition precedent to a party’s duty to perform, there must appear in the complaint at least the general allegation of compliance with that condition: Bouma v. Travelers Ins. Co., 110 Pitts. Leg. J. 75 (1961). In a contract for the sale of a house under construction there is an implied condition precedent that the construction be completed in accordance with the agreement between buyer and seller. Plaintiff does not allege that the house had been completed and that the corporation was itself ready to proceed to settlement. Those conditions had to be met before the defendant’s duty to perform arose. Thus, plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient material facts to show the liability which it seeks to have: enforced.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, September 23, 1977, defendant’s preliminary obj ection in the form of a demurrer to the complaint is sustained. Plaintiff is ordered and directed to file an amended complaint within 20 days of this order.
From: Microsoft Outlook To: katrina.holiday@faa.gov ; nia.daniels@faa.gov Subject: Relayed: FAA-2015-0131 Date: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:08:03 AM
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server: katrina.holiday@faa.gov <mailto:katrina.holiday@faa.gov> nia.daniels@faa.gov <mailto:nia.daniels@faa.gov> Subject: FAA-2015-0131
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Lennon,
President and 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 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/ JOHN LENNON
John Lennon
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2005
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
of Sanchez Computer Associates, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-21247) of 
our report dated February 3, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated 
financial statements of Sanchez Computer Associates, Inc. as of December 
31, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended 
December 31, 1996, which report is included (or incorporated by reference) 
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


2400 Eleven Penn Center
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
March 27, 1997
Mleridit h Ber k ; ; i ( r' :n7J:0 N 501 4 Colleg e ViewAve . Lo s Angeles , C

A9004 1 Regarding : FAA-2009-077 3 I jus t rea d abou t thi s regulatio n regardin g allowin g pilot s t o fl ywhil e unde rth e influenc e o f antidepressant s includin g Zoloft , Prozac , Celex a an d Lexapro . Thes e drug s al l hav e a "Boxe d Warning " b yth e FD A whic h include s th e possibilitie s o f "suicide , aggressiv e behavio ran d actin g withou t thinking" . Thi s ma yno t occu ri n ever ycase . However , thi s occur s frequentl yenoug h t o hav e th e FD Apu t thi s hig h leve l warnin g o n th e drugs . Thi s shoul d no t b e downplayed . I t i s real . Th e FD Ai s ver yreluctan t t o issu e suc h warning s an d onl ydoe s s o whe n i t i s absolutel ynecessary . Pleas e se e th e quot e belo wfro m th e FD AMedlin e Plus , Nationa l Institut e o f Healt h website . I t woul d b e a fa rbette ride a t o hir e pilot s wh o ar e no t depresse d an d eve n fin d a wa yo f actuall ymakin g th e depresse d pilot s fee l better . "Yo u shoul d kno wtha t you rmenta l healt h ma ychang e i n unexpecte d way s whe n yo u tak e fluoxetin e o rothe rantidepressant s eve n i fyo u ar e a n adul t ove r2 4 year s o fage . Yo u ma y becom e suicidal , especiall ya t th e beginnin g o fyou rtreatmen t an d an ytim e tha t you rdos e i s increase d o rdecreased . You , you rfamily , o ryou rcaregive rshoul d cal l you rdocto rrigh t awa yi f yo u experienc e an yo f th e followin g symptoms : ne wo rworsenin g depression ; thinkin g abou t harmin g o rkillin g yourself , o rplannin g o rtryin g t o d o so ; extrem e worry ; agitation ; pani c attacks ; difficult yfallin g aslee p o rstayin g asleep ; aggressiv e behavior ; irritability ; actin g withou t thinking ; sever e restlessness ; an d frenzie d abnorma l excitement . B e sur e tha t you r famil yo rcaregive rknow s whic h symptom s ma yb e seriou s s o the yca n cal l th e docto ri fyo u ar e unabl e t o see k

treatmen t o n you rown. " I woul d appreciat e you rlookin g int o thi s matte rfo ra bette rsolution , don' t believ e anyon e shoul d b e discriminate d against . However , I certainl ywoul d no t wan t a surgeo n operatin g o n m e i fthe yha d an y disabilit yo rdisorde ro rwer e takin g a medicatio n tha t woul d preven t the m fro m doin g th e bes t possibl e job . W e ar e talkin g abou t suc h a lif e an d deat h situatio n whe n i t come s t o flyin g a plane . Than k you ,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,951
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,827
<PP&E>                                           3,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                     394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,822
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,866
<SALES>                                         36,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,505
<CGS>                                           16,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,537
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,377
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45<F1><F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43<F1><F2>
<FN>
<F1>BASIC EPS BEFORE THE EXTRAORDINARY ITEM WAS $0.80. DILUTED EPS BEFORE THE
EXTRAORDINARY ITEM WAS $0.77.
<F2>EPS HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128 AND BASIC AND DILUTED
EPS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EPS LINE ITEMS ABOVE.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

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 on Form 10-Q of NUI Corporation (the "company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, John Kean, Jr., President and 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

 

 

/S/ John Kean, Jr.

John Kean, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2002