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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 September 20, 2017

p0913

Order 

Clerk

September 20, 2017

155845

In re R. J. K. TIMON, Minor.

SC: 155845

COA: 333788

Wayne CC Family Division:

13-512300-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals addressing the best interests determination, and REMAND this case to the 

Wayne Circuit Court for reconsideration of whether terminating respondent’s parental 

rights is in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5). The trial court judge failed 

to articulate whether her generalized concerns regarding the lack of permanency and 

stability for younger children placed with a guardian are present for this child. On 

remand, the trial court shall make an individualized determination as to whether 

terminating respondent’s parental rights is in the best interests of respondent’s youngest 

child without regard to a generalized policy disfavoring guardianship for children under 

the age of 14. The trial court shall receive additional evidence from the parties as 

necessary to make this determination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WPI GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 28, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                       1,424,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,845,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,270,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,557,995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,679,482
<PP&E>                                      17,902,830
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,395,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,503,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,523,791
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,240
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,639,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,503,061
<SALES>                                     69,494,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,494,757
<CGS>                                       40,511,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,166,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,445,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,900,551
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,568,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,332,551
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,332,551
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2011

y0421 

# Order

April 28, 2011

141518 & (24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141518 COA: 296200 Berrien CC: 04-404393-FC RODNEY ALLAN HUBBARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 27, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The
motion to remand is DENIED.
exv4w7






Exhibit 4.7








	THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE CLASS A-1 COMMON STOCK IN DALLAS, TEXAS
OR NEW YORK, NEW YORK PAR VALUE $.01
CUSIP 902737 10 5 A1
See Reverse for Certain Definitions
NUMBER SHARES A-1
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
THIS CERTIFIES THAT
is the owner of
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF CLASS A
-1 COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, OF
HealthMarkets, Inc., transferable only on the books of the Co
rporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized
attorne
y upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This
certifica
te is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer
Age
nt and Registrar.
Witness, the facsimile seal of the Corporation and th
e facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.
Dated:
Countersigned and Registered:
Mellon Invest
or Services LLC DALLAS, TEXAS
Transfer Agent            President and Chief Executive Officer and Registrar By
Authorized Signature            Secretary





 









 




THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE WERE ISSUED IN A TRANSACTION THAT WAS NOT REGISTERED
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR UNDER THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT
BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION
STATEMENT OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SAID ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE
SECURITIES LAWS.



THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TRANSFER AND OTHER
RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN THE STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF APRIL 5, 2006, AMONG
HEALTHMARKETS, INC. AND CERTAIN OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS, AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, MAY NOT BE OFFERED OR
SOLD EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS AND APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAW. A COPY OF
SUCH STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT IS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE COMPANY AND IS AVAILABLE WITHOUT
CHARGE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST THEREFOR. THE HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE, BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS
CERTIFICATE, AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT.




	 	 	 	 	 
	For Value Received,

	 	 	 	hereby sell, assign
	 

	 	 	 	 





	 	 	 
	and transfer unto
	 	 
	 

	 	 





 





	 	 	 
	 

	 	Shares
	 
	 	 





represented
by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint:




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Attorney
	 
	 	 




to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises.




Dated:
                           
                           
      





	 	 	 
	In presence of
	 	 
	 

	 	 





 




NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF
THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
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.                  

###### Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled

# AGENCY:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

# ACTION:

Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

# SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before: February 20, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email                         *CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

## Deletions

The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

### Product(s)

*NSN(s)—Product Name(s):*                         7530-01-398-2661—Easel Pad, Ruled, White, 27″ x 34″                    

*Designated Source of Supply:*                         Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL                    

*Contracting Activity:*                         GSA/FAS ADMIN SVCS ACQUISITION BR(2), NEW YORK, NY                    

*NSN(s)—Product Name(s):*

MR 343—Handheld Spiralizer

MR 13007—Julienne Peeler

MR 13008—Melon Baller

*Designated Source of Supply:*                         CINCINNATI ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED, Cincinnati, OH                    

*Contracting Activity:*                         Military Resale-Defense Commissary Agency                    

Michael R. Jurkowski,

Acting Director, Business Operations.

[FR Doc. 2022-01179 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
FILED

June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

CASEY LYNN BURGESS ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY

) 03A01- 9703- PB- 00077

Pe titione r - Appe lla nt )

)

)

v. ) HON. J AMES A. BEAN,

 ) J UDGE

) 

BRENDA LEA ( BURGESS) WELCH )

)

Re s ponde nt - Appe l l e e ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

PROCTOR UPCHURCH OF CROSSVI LLE FOR APPELLANT

BRETT A. YORK a nd CYNTHI A S. LYONS OF CROSSVI LLE FOR APPELLEE

 O P I N I O N

 Godda r d, P. J .

By t hi s a ppe a l Ca s e y Lynn Bur ge s s i ns i s t s t ha t t he

Tr i a l Cour t wa s i n e r r or i n di s mi s s i ng hi s pe t i t i on f or c ha nge of

c us t ody of hi s t wo c hi l dr e n, c us t ody of whom by t he di vor c e

decr ee wa s awa r de d t o Ms . We l c h.

Our r e vi e w of t he r e c or d, i nc l udi ng t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s

f i ndi ngs of f a c t a nd me mor a ndum opi ni on, a nd t he a ppe l l a t e br i e f s
2

of t he pa r t i e s , pe r s ua de s us t hi s i s a n a ppr opr i a t e c a s e f or

a f f i r ma nc e unde r Rul e 10( a ) of t hi s Cour t .

The j udgme nt of t he Tr i a l Cour t i s a c c or di ngl y a f f i r me d

a nd t he c a us e r e ma nde d f or s uc h f ur t he r pr oc e e di ngs , i f a ny, a s

ma y be ne c e s s a r y a nd c ol l e c t i on of c os t s be l ow. Cos t s of a ppe a l

a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t Mr . Bur ge s s a nd hi s s ur e t y.

_______________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .

CONCUR:

________________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

________________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .
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 American Rare Earths and Materials, Corp. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Nataliya Hearn, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section     1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.














Date: September 24, 2010
By:
/s/ Nataliya HearnNataliya Hearn, Ph.D.President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
ACCEPTED 03-15-00079-CR 7875617 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/17/2015 8:36:12 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

: Case No. 3:18cr15 

Plaintiff,

: JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

vs. 

: 

DAVID LANDERS

: 

Defendant. 

ORDER DELAYING EXECUTION OF SENTENCE

For good cause shown, it is hereby ordered that the Defendant’s execution of sentence be 

delayed until on or after August 1, 2020. The United States Marshal is to seek a designation for on 

or after August 1, 2020. 

June 1, 2020 __________________________________________ 

WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of record 

United States Marshal

Case: 3:18-cr-00015-WHR Doc #: 46 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 132
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:18CR040 

 Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 v. : 

MICHAEL LEE BOWMAN JR., : 

 Defendant. : 

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 

 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2018, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture 

(Doc. 35) ordering the forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2253(a)(1) and (3), of the following 

property (hereinafter “Subject Property”): 

a. Samsung cellular telephone, Model SM-S765C, #268435463203489261, 

FCCID A3LSMS765C; 

b. ZTE cellular telephone, Model Z832, SN: 328C7480084B; and 

c. Coolpad cellular telephone, Model Coolpad 3320A, IMEI 867441024019547. 

WHEREAS, the United States published notice of this forfeiture action and the intent of 

the United States to dispose of the Subject Property in accordance with law, and further notified all 

potential claimants of their right to petition the Court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of 

their alleged interest in the Subject Property, beginning on August 2, 2018, continuing for at least 

thirty (30) consecutive days, on the www.forfeiture.gov website (Doc. 40); and 

 WHEREAS, the United States sent direct written notice of the Preliminary Order of 

Forfeiture to all persons who reasonably appeared to be a potential claimant with standing to 

contest the forfeiture of the Subject Property in the ancillary proceeding (Doc. 41); and 

WHEREAS, no timely petition has been filed to the Subject Property; and 
2 

 WHEREAS, the Defendant was sentenced and a Judgment was issued on August 31, 2018, 

ordering the forfeiture of the Subject Property (Doc. 38); and 

WHEREAS, the Court finds that the Defendant had an interest in the Subject Property; the 

United States has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense; and the 

United States has established that the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. §§ 2253(a)(1) and (3); 

 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 

the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture entered in this action on August 1, 2018 (Doc. 35), ordering 

the forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2253(a)(1) and (3), of the Subject Property is final; and 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all right, title and 

interest to the Subject Property is hereby condemned, forfeited and vested in the United States of 

America and the United States has clear title to the Subject Property; and 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the custodian is hereby 

authorized to dispose of the Subject Property in accordance with the law; and 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the United States 

District Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case for the purpose of enforcing this Final Order of 

Forfeiture. 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: 10/24/2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ____________________________________ 

 THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. Charles MARTIN

85-57

692 S.W.2d 226

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered June 24, 1985

*Keith Vaughn, P.A.,*for appellant.

*Lesly W. Mattingly,*for appellee.

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.

This appeal is from an injunction granted in favor of the appellee, a police officer, against the City of Jacksonville, enjoining the city “from pursuing a *289practice whereby the plaintiff (appellee) is required to accept regular pay for hours in excess of 40 per week, . . . and, from treating any of the plaintiffs (appellee’s) normal days off as vacation.” This case was certified to us by the court of appeals as presenting a question of statutory construction. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 29(l)(c).

Appellee filed suit in chancery court contending that the City of Jacksonville has devised a scheme and plan which violates the laws of the State of Arkansas as they relate to the working conditions of the appellee and that the appellant should be permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in such conduct. He also asked that the appellant be directed to pay appellee’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Appellant responded to this complaint with an answer and motion to dismiss, stating in part, that appellee has an adequate remedy at law and that equitable relief is not appropriate. We agree.

 The issue presented is a dispute over the proper method of determining overtime and vacation compensation. The controlling statute on compensation for police officers is Ark. Stat. Ann. §19-1712 (Repl. 1980). Whether or not the appellee is entitled to certain compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week is a question of law for which there is an adequate remedy in circuit court. In addition to the appellee’s action at law for back pay, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-2502 (Repl. 1962) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 57 permit a declaratory judgment to be sought for the purpose of determining a controversy as to statutory interpretation. Injunctive relief however was not an appropriate remedy because it is not proper for the judiciary to issue a continuing injunction requiring the City of Jacksonville to determine the question of compensation correctly throughout the indefinite future. *Young*v. *Clayton, 223*Ark. 1, 264 S.W.2d 41 (1954).

The appellant’s motion to dismiss should have been treated as a motion to transfer to circuit court. Accordingly we reverse the trial court and remand with instructions to transfer the proceedings to circuit court.

Reversed and remanded.

*290George Rose Smith, Jr., not participating.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

PATRICIA KNIGHT, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-147

 

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent Case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

(DOC. 18); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $5,000.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $5,000.00. Doc. 18. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the 

reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 18); 

and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $5,000.00. As no further matters remain 

pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/18/2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



The Board of Directors
Progressive Bank, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-10235 and 33-64888) of our report dated January 21, 1997
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Progressive Bank, Inc. and
subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Progressive Bank, Inc.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 12, 1997
#### CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION and C. P. C. Chemical & Plastics Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellees, v. DI-NOC CHEMICAL ARTS, INC., Appellant.

No. 9774.

United States Court of. Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 2, 1965.

Decided March 11, 1965.

H. Stephen Madsen, Cleveland, Ohio (Joseph T. Gorman, Kent, Ohio, A. Baron Holmes III, Charleston, S. C., Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, and Hagood, Rivers & Young, Charleston, S. C., on brief), for appellant.

Don G. Nicholson, Miami, Fla., and Ernest F. Hollings, Charleston, S. C. (Hollings & Hawkins, Charleston, S. C., and Nicholson, Howard & Brawner, Miami, Fla., on brief), for appellees.

Before BRYAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUTCHE-SON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal1 from an order of the district court denying a foreign corporate defendant’s motions to dismiss the action for lack of in personam jurisdiction and for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) to the-Northern District of Ohio.

The court’s order was based upon the complaint, exhibits attached thereto, and affidavits. We agree that at this stage of the case, the motions were properly denied. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b).