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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

128780 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver (64) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, RICHARD G. SMITH, JR., Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 128780 COA: 251773 Bay CC: 03-003286-CZ DOUGLAS C. SMITH, Individually, as Trustee, and as Personal Representa tive of the Estate of Joyce Smith, SARAH J. SMITH-LUBARSKY, CARL H. SMITH, III, ESTATE OF RICHARD G. SMITH, SR., RICHARD G. SMITH REVOCABLE TRUST, JOYCE SMITHREVOCABLE TRUST, THRUSHWOODSMITH FAMILY JOINT TRUST, WEE HOUSE-SMITH FAMILY JOINT TRUST, ALBERT C. HICKS, a nd SMITH & BROOKER, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of December 27, 2005 is considered , and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

C AVANAGH , J., not participating.

l0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

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

I, John J. Lennon of Pyramid Breweries Inc. ("registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of the registrant;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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 officers 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

      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
      controls over financial reporting.

Date: December 10, 2004

/s/ John J. Lennon
_________________________

John J. Lennon
Chief Executive Officer
12769

#### STATE v. WARDLAW

(150 S. E., 614)

*176
      *Mr. R. A.*Hannon, for appellant,

*Solicitor I. C. Blackwood,*for respondent.

November 29, 1929.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. CitiEE Justice Watts.

The appellant, Will Wardlaw, was tried and convicted in his absence at the April term of the Sessions Court for Spartanburg County for violation of the prohibition law, and received a sentence oí one year on the chaingang. Due notice of appeal to the Supreme Court was given below and is here perfected.

The exceptions are: (1) It is respectfully submitted that the Judge' erred in allowing the witness Haynes to testify as follows: “He runs a hotel on Broad Street, and bootlegs most of the time.” This was the mere opinion of the witness, with no' facts given upon which to base it, and was highly prejudicial to the appellant in the eyes of the jury. (2) It is respectfully submitted that the Judge’s charge is defective, in that it does not “declare the law,” as required by the Constitution of this State as set forth in Article 5, par. 26, of the Constitution of 1895.

The exceptions are overruled as being without merit. No objection was made to the evidence, and no motion was made to strike out. The Judge was not asked to amplify his charge, and no request was made for further charge.

Judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, Beease, Stabler and Carter concur.
# Drive to drill, save some lives...Another day at the office

/ Published Dec. 23, 2008

MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD, Calif. - Early Sunday morning on Dec. 7, Lt. Col. Jack O'Neill, commander of the 130th Rescue Squadron of the California Air National Guard's 129th Rescue Wing, was driving in his car from San Ramon, Calif., for the second day of the weekend drill at Moffett Federal Airfield.

At 5 a.m., he was just waking up, driving to what he thought would be another routine day at drill on Interstate 680 southbound, near Mission Boulevard in Milpitas. Suddenly, his attention was caught by his rear view mirror, where he watched as a large bread van had wandered off the right shoulder and head-on impacted the leading edge of an overpass guardrail.

"The van became airborne with an immediate 30-foot fireball explosion," Colonel O'Neill said. "I was taken aback by the size of the explosion .The van landed on the driver's side with the undercarriage on fire. I pulled over to the shoulder, called 911 and then began backing up to render assistance. I thought to myself ... Self-Aid Buddy Care training don't fail me now!"

A nearby semi-truck driver, "Matt," also saw the single-vehicle accident and had pulled over and was rendering assistance, Colonel O'Neill said. "Matt had yelled to the occupants to cover their faces, and had broken the windshield with his fire extinguisher. I became his wingman and assisted with opening the windshield to get the people out of the cab. We pulled one man and three women from the vehicle. We got them a safe distance and covered them with blankets that were pulled from the wreckage. Luckily, all of the individuals seemed to be okay."

Although Matt expended his fire extinguisher fighting the blaze, he was unable to put out the fire. The fire department, police and ambulance soon arrived and took control of the situation, carrying two of the victims to the hospital on backboards.

The rescuers were lucky, too: Both had bleeding cuts on their hands from shards of glass from the windshield, and Matt had some eye discomfort, but neither had major injuries, Colonel O'Neill said. "Matt did say he wished he'd put on gloves first."

Displaying the courtesy and humility Air Guardsmen prize, Colonel O'Neill thanked Matt for his quick thinking and heroic life-saving efforts. There was no way those accident victims could have gotten out of that van without assistance. Just starting his 12-hour workday, Matt had a long day ahead. "It was very satisfying to be Matt's wingman and help get four people out of a terrible situation," Colonel O'Neill said.

"I never thought I would say this, but I'm thankful for the SABC training we received in preparation for the ORI. It gave me the confidence to be proactive and get involved. Luckily today, I did not have to use any of that knowledge," Colonel O'Neill said.

"I think I will break out my AFMAN 10-100 for a little refresher training. I am also going to buy a few more fire extinguishers for my home and car, and keep a pair of gloves in the trunk. You never know when you might be needed to be a first-responder or wingman."
EXHIBIT - 32.1 
SITEWORKS BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CO.,.   
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of SiteWorks Building & DevelopmentCo.,. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 23, 2005 , as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Carl Nurse, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 
(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and 
(2)     The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the Company. 
/s/ CarlNurse                                      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer May 23, 2005
2023 AFSAM

Pistol Barricade

PI2030

SHOOTER SCORE ROST # STATE/COUNTRY 

1 SGT NORCROSS, AUSTIN D 119 CO 278

2 1SG CAPPS, JOSEPH A 111 AR 273

3 SFC SAGER, DEVIN S 152 CO 263

4 SFC WILLIS, RICHARD 135 KY 263

5 GYSGT RANTON, CHAD W 101 VA 258

6 SGT SMIT, ANDREW 140 NETHERLANDS 255

7 CPT BROTHERSTON, CURTIS G 133 CO 252

8 MAJ URICK, GRANT M 132 HI 251

9 MAJ CAMPBELL, JESSE D 134 ID 250

10 SSG FULMER, MICAH N 116 CO 247

11 SGT GOLDADE, TYLER R 110 ND 243

12 SFC GODEL, JASON W 125 TX 243

13 MSGT WATTERS, NATHAN A 108 AR 231

14 SFC KEENOM, DAVID D 141 TN 228

15 SFC STAATS, JOHN A 118 AR 225

16 MAJ CONNERS, THOMAS J 142 222

17 SGT DEVILLE, JIMMY 121 UK 221

18 LCPL BURGESS, MARCUS 129 UK 218

19 SFC ARCHAMBAULT, MAX 117 VT 216

20 SGT MULLER, SHAUN P 102 VA 215

21 MAJ PEASLEY, MARK 138 UK 212

22 SSG STEWART, JUDE O 100 VA 211

23 E5 DUERR, DAVID C 107 CA 208

24 MAJOR ROSIE, LANCE 123 UK 203

25 SGT COLGAN, JOHNATHON 139 UK 202

26 WO1 DOUGLAS, JAMES 120 UK 200

27 SSG CATT, KEVIN 122 UK 199

28 E-5 LUSH, TRAVIS C 105 VA 199

29 CW4 KNOTE, ANDY T 124 KY 199

30 1SG BOELLAARD, MAX 113 NETHERLANDS 198

31 CPL FILGATE, MICHAEL 130 UK 198

32 SGT FLEITAS, NICKOLAS 103 197

33 CPL ROWAN, BRIAN 137 UK 190

34 CPL BUSSTRA, MARTIJN 114 NETHERLANDS 181

35 LCPL FERGUSON, ANDREW 128 UK 180

36 MAJ WILKEN, ERIK 115 NETHERLANDS 179

37 CPT PANTOJA, LUIS 126 KS 177

38 SFC PHELPS, STEFAN S 106 VA 174

39 SSG GORDON, COLIN 136 UK 164

40 SFC BOLANOS, STEVEN L 104 CA 160

41 SPC GADZIK, TIMOTHY J 127 IL 159

42 PVT DOPPERT, SANTINO 112 NETHERLANDS 156

43 CFN PICKLES, JOSHUA 131 UK 147

Page 1 of 2 Time printed: 5/3/2023 8:18:56 PM
SHOOTER SCORE ROST # STATE/COUNTRY 

44 SGT MARLAR, SAMUEL A 143 MA 143

Page 2 of 2 Time printed: 5/3/2023 8:18:56 PM
13953

#### CITY OF COLUMBIA v. TATUM *ET AL.*

(177 S. E., 541)

*394
      *Messrs. John M. Daniel, Attorney General*and /. *Ivey Humphrey*and *J. Ingram Wilson, Assistant Attorneys General,*for appellants,

*Mr. J. B. S. Lyles,*for respondents,

*395
      *Messrs. Paul A. Cooper*and *Joseph L. Nettles,*for respondents.

December 1, 1934.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr., Justice Bonham.

The well-considered decree of Judge Mann fully considers and disposes of every issue made by this appeal. Any opinion of this Court must of necessity be merely a duplication of the decree.

It may not be amiss to add that the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission in the premises is further sustained by the provisions of Section 8248, Volume 3, Code 1932, Act March 6, 1922, 32 St. at Barge, page 956, § 6, to wit:

> *“Powers as to Public Utilities.*— The railroad commission is hereby vested with power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate the rates and service of every public utility in this State and to fix such just and reasonable standards, classifications, regulations, practices and measurements of service to be furnished, imposed or observed and followed by every public utility in this State.”

It would be difficult to conceive of a more liberal grant of power. It is sufficient to embrace that power which the Railroad Commission exercised in these premises, which is approved by the Circuit decree.

The exceptions are overruled. The Circuit decree is affirmed. Bet it be reported.

Messrs. Justices Stabeer, and G. Dewey Oxner and Mr. Acting Associate Justice A. B. Gaston, concur.

Mr. Justice Carter concurs in result.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

July 30, 2013

p0722 

# Order

Clerk July 30, 2013

146470

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146470

COA: 311794

Livingston CC: 08

- 017709

- FC

MOURAD ELMANAR

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2012

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).
Present: All the Justices 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 980061 November 6, 1998 

JAMES ARTHUR PRICE, JR. 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 In this appeal, the Court reviews a judgment of the Court 

of Appeals holding that the accused was held continuously in 

custody in excess of five months from a finding of probable 

cause until trial in violation of Code § 19.2-243, the so-called 

"speedy trial" statute. Price v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 655, 

492 S.E.2d 447 (1997). 

 For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of 

Appeals, we will affirm that court's judgment. See Jackson v. 

Commonwealth, 255 Va. 625, 642, 499 S.E.2d 538, 549 (1998).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Advent Software, Inc.

March 31, 2006

/s/GRAHAM V. SMITHGraham V. Smith Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


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

---



QuickLinks
yrs. Violet S. C.scanhil.1, Chir!f 3lviaionof Child.

:ielfare cnpltolmilding .:u;tin,

l!oxss

Ear 3%. G.roonhill:

boordin hose, or child ylocin: aTemy, or other ploco for the c3ra Or OuStOdy Of chilir~en

uni&r firt~sl year-c of agef or rl10 f~hzll solioilt

fcnGs in this Ststc for e11y SCCll place or institution,sli;?llobti?in an c~~vx.1

lionace frost

the Statci l;oord of llaalth

, vhich lScnns~ Shall bo iscu.ed without fw?, 2~~1

un~dor such rccsonable end uniform ruler: rrud reguLationaa3
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          JUN-30-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR-31-1999
[CASH]                                               0
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                       0
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                                0
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                 10,000,000
[COMMON]                                     1,270,367
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                         0
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               (2,500)
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   (2,500)
[EPS-BASIC]                                          0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
#### EBENEZER G. WHITING, *vs.*EDWIN GOULD and JAMES R. HAWKINS.

The party entitled to recover costs, as for “ solicitor’s” fees, is determined by the final result of the suit.

Whatever may have been the proceedings, or adjudications, the matter of solicitor’s fees remain in abeyance until the final result, and is determined thereby in favor of the party in whose favor the final decree is pronounced.

Interlocutory costs, so far as relates to solicitor’s fees, must follow the final adjudication, and may be taxed by items, in favor of the prevailing party, to the maximum prescribed by the statute.

*By the*Court,

Smith, J.

This is a motion for the retaxation of costs, on a previous motion heretofore made and decided in this court, at the present term, by the defendants, appellants, to suppress certain testimony taken in the cause previous to its hearing in the court below. The motion last mentioned, after argument, was overruled at the costs of the defendants making the same.

The costs of the last mentioned motion were taxed by the clerk on due notice, and the defendants being dissatisfied with such taxation, now move to have the same retaxed by the court.

In the bill, as taxed by the clerk, is contained *199$17.46, as solicitor’s fees, on the motion to suppress. To this the defendant’s object, and ask the opinion of the court thereon. x

Section 34, ox chapter 131, of the Revised Statutes, prescribes the “ fees to be allowed the party recovering judgment in chancery, in case a solicitor shall have been employed.” After mentioning the several items of service for which fees may be taxed, and fixing the amount for each, the section concludes with the following proviso : “ Provided that the costs in each case shall not exceed twenty dollars.”

The phrase “ *each ca-sé'1*must -be held to mean each cause in chancery, and the party entitled to recover, is determined by the result of the suit. The “ judgment” mentioned in the statute must necessarily mean the final decree. Whatever, therefore, may have been the proceedings, or adjudications, during the progress of the suit, from its commencement to its close, the question of solicitor’s' fees remains in abeyance, until the final result, and is determined thereby, in favor of the party in whose favor the final decree may be pronounced.

Therefore, interlocutory costs, so far as relates to solicitor’s fees, must follow the final adjudication, and may be taxed, by items, by the ultimately prevailing party, to the maximum prescribed by the statute.

The fees taxed by the clerk, as solicitor’s fees for the complainant, upon the motion to suppress, must therefore be stricken out.
SERVEDJULY12 , 201 1

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH E MAT 1 E

RO F FROSTA D ATELIER , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . [T O B E ASSIGNED j (Civi l Penult

y Action ) FDM S No . FAA-2011-029 4 

### M M 1 2 P3:5 b

ORDE RDIRECTIN G FILIN G O FANSWE R Complainan t

Federal Aviatio n Adminislralio n ("Complainant" ) file daMotio n t o Dee mAllegation s Admitte d("Motion") , citin g th e failure of Responden t

FrostadAtelier , Inc . ("Respondent" ) to answe r th e Complaint . Respondent' s answe r aske dtha t th e Motio n b e denied . I

n suppor t i t assert s tha

t lli e Complain t

ha dnot bee n serve daccordin g t o th e Rule s o f

Practice . I

( als o claim s tha

t i t "ha s n o knowledg e of

an y prio r inailings. " I t di dno t addres s the Motion' s clai mtha t th e Complain t

wa s .sen t b y facsimil e t o Responden t

an dduly receive da

t th e facsimil e numbe

T liste dfo

r Respondent' s counse l afte r aComplain t

sen t b y certifie dmai l t o Respondent' s counse l ha dbeen returne d unclaimed . No r

ha s Responden t

fileda n Answer to th e Complaint . Responden t

shal l fil e a

n Answe r t o th e Complain t

n o later tha n Jul y 19 , 2011 . S O ORDERED . 

## Uc^S J C . iy^^c^^^^"^ . RichardC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachment

- Servic e Lis lFDM S No . FAA-2()Il-029 4 (Civi l Penall y Aclioji ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Adminislralio n 80 0 hidcpcndcnc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WI()0o ' ON E COP Y Davi dW . Williams , Kcspondcm' s Counse l Attorne y a

t La w 1(^37 2 Undcrhil l Lan e Huntingto n Beach , C A 9264 7 TEL : 714-745-561 0 Lis aJ . Toscano , Complaiiuinl' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , AWP- 7 Western-Pacifi c Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles , C A 90009-200 7 TEL : 310-725-711 0 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrafiv e La w Jud^ e Offic e o f Hearings . M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEI2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r service i n perso n or.b y expeditedcourier , use ih

e followin g address : Tedera

l Aviatio n Administrution , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building — Suil c 2W1OOO , Washington , D

C 20591 . Allention : Heurin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 . •