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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

August 7 , 2020

161241

- 2(19)

PEGASUS WIND, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 161241

v COA: 351532

Tuscola CC: 19

- 030703

- AA

TOWNSHIP OF JUNIATA, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and JUNIATA

TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMM ISSION,

Defendants

- Appellants.

__________________________________________

GREG ACKERMAN

, CHERYL ACKERMAN,

ROGER ADAMS, DIAN ADAMS, TIMOTHY

BARBER, KRISTI BARBER, BRADLEY BARNES

, GINGER BARNES, CAISTER FARMS, INC.,

STELLA CLINESMITH, CUMMINGS

MONVILLE FARM S

, LLC

, ZELEM ESTERLINE,

BARBARA ESTERLINE, FARM MANAGEMENT

GROUP, LLC

, STAN FESSLER, III, RITA

FESSLER , JOSEPH FESSLER

, DEBRA FESSLER,

STEVEN FINDLAY, GARNER LAND CO

., LLC,

RONALD GOEBEL, INGRID GOEBEL,

GOODCHILD FAMILY FARMS, LLC, JANSON

LAND COMPANY, LARACHA INVESTMENTS,

LLC, CO RI MILLER, SUE LYNN NEARING,

VIRGIL NEARING, BRANDON PALM, HEIKI

PALM, PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES LAND,

PAUL DOST FARMS, LLC, ROBERT PIKE,

DAVID PRATT, KAREN PRATT, LARRY

RUCKLE, RUSSELL FAMILY LAND CO

. , LLC,

STARKEY FARMS, INC., ELAINE STOICK,

GORDON TEDFORD, DONN A TEDFORD, KELLY

WRIGHT, FRED HESS, ALBERTA HESS, JAN

HESS, BARB HESS, TOM HESS, and HARLEY

MIKKELSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,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.

A ugust 7 , 2020 2

Clerk SC: 161242

v COA: 351644

Tuscola CC: 19

- 0307 2 3

- AA

TOWNSHIP OF JUNIATA, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and JUNIATA

TOWNSHIP P LANNING COMMISSION,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to extend the time for filing a reply to the

answer of plaintiff

- appellee Pegasus Wind, LLC, is GRANTED. The reply submitted on

August 4, 2020, is accepted as timely fi led.
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 Click Commerce, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: August 14, 2003 |  |  | /s/MICHAEL W. FERRO, JR.Michael W. Ferro, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7914

LEROY CARMAN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01- 1582-MJG) Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Carman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Carman appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Carman v. United States , No. CA-01- 1582-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0158. VICTOR CALLAHAN v. THE STATE.

Victor Callahan was convicted of kidnaping, armed robbery, and hijacking a

motor vehicle, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. See Callahan v. State,

250 Ga. App. 193 (550 SE2d 757) (2001). He subsequently filed a motion to set aside

the judgment, claiming that the judgment is void because there is no record of his

indictment being returned in open court. The trial court dismissed the motion, and

Callahan filed this appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A post-conviction motion seeking to vacate an allegedly void conviction is not

a valid procedure in a criminal case, and any appeal from the denial or dismissal of

such a motion must be dismissed. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 192 (695 SE2d

244) (2010); Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Because

Callahan’s motion is an improper collateral attack on his conviction, this appeal is

hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 17, 2021

09/17/2021
13961

#### PIPPIN *ET AL.*v. SAMS

(177 S. E., 659)

*457
      *Messrs. Patterson & Tobin*and *Searson & Searson,*for appellant,

*458
      *Messrs. C. Birnie Johnson*and *Randolph Mmdaugh,*for respondent,

December 11, 1934.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. A. L. Gaston, Acting Associate Justice.

This case was begun in the Probate Court on petition filed October 24, 1932, by the appellant to require the will of D. Sams, deceased, to be proved in due form of law. The Probate Judge held that the testator had sufficient mental capacity and admitted the said will to probate in due form of law; the Probate Court held that he had no jurisdiction to construe the will. The matter was then heard by Judge Oxner without a jury, by agreement of counsel, and all issues were submitted to him. We think the questions raised were properly disposed of by the Circuit Judge and his learned decree is made the opinion of this Court.

The exceptions are overruled and the judgment below is affirmed. In addition to the circuit decree, the recent case of *Watson v. Watson,*172 S. C., 362, 174 S. E., 33, fully sustains the Circuit Judge in holding that the appellant is bound by her agreement not to claim dower in any of the real estate of her husband, D. Sams, and that now, as the widow of the testator, she having contracted while her husband was alive not to claim dower, and to relinquish dower if called upon, is now estopped and cannot assert any claim whatsoever to dower rights in any lands of which her husband *459died seized and possessed, nor in any lands alienated by him. Therefore, all of the exceptions relating to the appellant’s right of dower are overruled.

Furthermore, the finding of the Probate Court, affirmed by the circuit decree, holding that D. Sams had sufficient mental capacity to make the will, is fully sustained by the testimony and all exceptions relating to testamentary capacity are overruled.

Likewise, the circuit decree holding that the word “children,” as used in the will, limits the gift to the children in being at the death of the testator, is supported by the authorities cited, and the will does not violate the law against perpetuities, and all exceptions relating to this issue are overruled.

The appellant has urged in argument most earnestly that the release executed by her does not include her claims against the estate of D. Sams, as- an heir at law or distribu-tee ; and that she did not release her right of inheritance in his estate. But counsel for appellant admits that the testator has the right to control his property after his death by a valid will, executed in conformity with the requirements of law, so that the appellant can claim nothing in the estate of her deceased husband under the terms of his will and she is bound by the will. Therefore, all exceptions relating to this claim to a part in his estate are overruled.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment below be, and hereby is, affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Stabler, Carter, and Bonham, concur.
### ESA C o m p li an c e A ss i s t an ce Roge r K ohn t

o: Da v i d J en k i n s

, S H ill 02 / 22 / 2012 09 : 25 AM

C c: J u li e W a l t

e rs

W e o ff e r ed t o p r o v i de y ou w

i t h s a m p l e c o rr

e s ponden c e t

ha t de scr i be s gene r

a ll y wha t we w

ill need t o

en s u r e ESA c o m p li an c e

, on c e we ha v e r e c e i v ed a f

i na l B i o l og i c a l O p i n i on f r o m t he FW S f

o r t he PPE C

. I

ha v e a tt a c hed an e x a m p l e o f a l e tt e r we s end t

o PS D pe rm i t app li c an t s a ft e r t he FW S i ss ue s i t

s

B i o l og i c a l O p i n i on

. W e hope t h i s i s he l p f

u l.

A v ena l

_ 0901

_ C v r L t

r

_ ESA

- F i na l B O. pd f

Roge r K ohn

U SEPA Reg i on 9

- A i r D i v i s i on (A I R

- 3)

75 Haw t ho r ne S t r eet

S an F r an c i sc o

, C A 94105

- 3901

415

- 972

- 3973

k ohn

. r oge r @ epa
Exhibit 5



                                 June 8, 2007


Applebee's International, Inc.
4551 West 107th St.
Overland Park, KS  66207


Ladies and Gentlemen:

I refer to the  Registration  Statement of Applebee's  International,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission
for the purpose of registering under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Act"),  500,000  shares of the  Company's  Common  Stock,  $.01 par value  (the
"Common  Stock"),  to  be  issued  pursuant  to  the  terms  of  the  Applebee's
International, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan").

I am  familiar  with the  proceedings  to date  with  respect  to such  proposed
issuance and have examined  such  records,  documents and matters of the law and
satisfied  myself as to such matters of fact as I have  considered  relevant for
the purposes of this opinion.

Based upon the  foregoing,  it is my opinion  that the 500,000  shares of Common
Stock to be issued under the Plan,  when issued and sold in accordance  with the
Plan, will be legally  issued,  fully paid and  non-assessable.  This opinion is
limited to the Delaware General Corporation Law.

I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5 to the  Registration
Statement and to the reference to me in the Registration  Statement.  My consent
shall not be deemed an admission  that I am an expert whose  consent is required
under Section 7 of the Act.



                                          Very truly yours,


                                           /s/ Rebecca R. Tilden
                                          -----------------------
                                          Rebecca R. Tilden
                                          Vice President and General Counsel
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934, AS AMENDED

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Stephen Wong, President and Chief Executive Officer of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Embarcadero
Technologies, 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 officer(s) 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 reasonable 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 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 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.



|November 10, 2003                    
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ STEPHEN WONG                     
|Stephen Wong                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer
0227

#### Ashley CHAPPELL, Respondent, v. Marvin S. CHAPPELL, Appellant.

(318 S. E. (2d) 590)

Court of Appeals

*James R. Honeycutt,*Fort Mill, *for appellant.*

*James F. Fewster, III,*Rock Hill, *for respondent.*

Hearded June 25, 1984.

Decided Aug. 8, 1984.

Goolsby, Judge:

Marvin S. Chappell appeals from an order that holds him in contempt for failure to pay child support and for attempting to pay the child support in a manner that interfered “with the due administration of justice.” We dismiss Chappell’s appeal.

Approximately two weeks after the family court ordered *377Chappell to pay child support through the Clerk of Court, he appeared at the Clerk’s office and attempted to pay the child support with unrolled nickles, dimes and pennies. The Clerk’s office refused to accept the payment in that form. Chappell also attempted to pay the child support in a manner unacceptable to the Clerk on two subsequent occasions. Thereafter, instead of attempting to make the child support payments directly to the Clerk of Court, Chappell opened an account with a local savings and loan company and deposited the amount due as child support in it.

Following a hearing on a rule to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to pay child support, the family court adjudged Chappell guilty of “willfull contempt” because of the arrearage and the manner in which Chappell attempted to make the child support payments. The family court ordered Chappell confined to the county j ail for a period of 10 days. It also ordered him to pay a fine of $250.00; however, the family court ordered the jail sentence suspended upon payment of the fine and child support arrearages totaling $834.30. Chappell paid the fine and arrearages.

Where one held in contempt for violation of a court order complies with the order, his compliance renders the question concerning whether he was in contempt academic or moot and precludes appellate review of the contempt proceedings. *Herring v. Herring,*236 Ga. 43, 222 S. E. (2d) 331 (1976); *Gabriel v. Gabriel*219 Ga. 290. 133 S. E. (2d) 25 (1963); 17 C. J. S. *Contempt*§ 124(1) at 331 (1963). The payment of a fine imposed in contempt proceedings also waives the right of review. *State v. Belue,*138 S. C. 393, 136 S. E. 641 (1926); *Town of Batesburg v. Mitchell,*58 S. C. 564, 37 S. E. 36 (1900); 17 C. J. S. *Contempt*§ 120(b) at 318 (1963); Annot., 33 A. L. R. (3d) 448 § 26 at 573 (1970); *but see*S. C. Code of Laws § 14-25-95 (Cum. Supp. 1983) (person may appeal from municipal court to court of general sessions upon entry into bond or payment of fine); *Id.*§ 18-3-30 (1976) (payment of fine imposed by magistrate does not waive right of appeal). Here, by paying the arrearages Chappell purged himself of contempt for failure to pay child support; and by paying the fine he satisfied the sentence imposed for contempt in attempting to pay the child support in a manner that interfered with the due *378administration of justice. We therefore regard the case as moot and unappealable. Accordingly, Chappell’s appeal is

Dismissed.

Sanders, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.
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  Everyday   Assembly
Productions,  Inc., on Form 10- QSB for the period ending  September 30, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned,  B. Stephen Bailey,  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/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
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.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Hercules Offshore, Inc. and The Hercules Offshore Drilling Company, 

LLC v. Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00817-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-49993

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

Appellee Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc. has filed an Opposed Motion for Leave to 

Supplement Appellee Brief. Appellants Hercules Offshore, Inc. and The Hercules Offshore 

Drilling Company, LLC have filed a response. We GRANT the motion for leave to file the 

supplemental brief.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 7, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER15-861-000; EL15-53-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Supplemental 
Notice Concerning Post Technical Conference Comments

    By order issued in this proceeding on March 16, 2015,\1\ the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission directed its staff to convene a 
technical conference to develop a record regarding issues related to 
imbalance energy price spikes experienced in PacifiCorp's balancing 
authority areas subsequent to PacifiCorp's full activation in the 
California Independent System Operator Corporation's Energy Imbalance 
Market, and to facilitate the development of a long-term solution. 
Parties wishing to file post-technical conference comments should do so 
on or before April 23, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 150 FERC ] 61,191 (2015).

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08558 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE GUADALUPE VARGAS-FRIAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10347

D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00282-AWI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jose Guadalupe Vargas-Frias appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 58-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Vargas-Frias’s counsel has

FILED

MAY 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. Vargas-Frias has filed a pro se supplemental

opening brief, the government has filed an answering brief, and Vargas-Frias has

filed a pro se reply brief. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

decline to consider Vargas-Frias’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on

direct appeal because the record is insufficiently developed to evaluate that claim,

and Vargas-Frias’s legal representation was not so inadequate as to obviously deny

his right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 2011). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10347