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

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

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. 

 

 

May 16, 2018 

p0509 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 16, 2018 

157404 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 157404 

 COA: 326105 

Allegan CC: 13-018686-FC 

BRANDON JAMES HARBISON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing whether the prosecution’s admission of Dr. N. Debra Simms’ expert 

testimony that the victim suffered “probable pediatric sexual abuse” violated this Court’s 

decision in People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349 (1995), and, if so, whether this was plain 

error requiring reversal of the defendant’s convictions. In addition to the brief, the 

appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the 

brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by 

MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being 

served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, 

or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if 

any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s 

brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Doniele Smith, on behalf of herself and others,

similarly situated,

Case No: 2:17-cv-1077

Plaintiff,

Judge Graham

v.

CHS Employment Services, LLC,

Defendant.

Opinion and Order

This Fair Labor Standards Act case is before the court on the parties’ joint motion to file their

settlement agreement under seal. The court denies the motion to file under seal for the reasons set 

forth in the court’s opinion in Stanley v. Turner Oil & Gas Props., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-386, 2017 WL 

5068444 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2017); see also Fairfax v. Hogan Transportation Equip., Inc., No. 2:16-

cv-680, 2019 WL 466148 at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2019). “In the Sixth Circuit and elsewhere, the 

‘great weight of authority’ favors open court documents generally and favors open FLSA settlement 

agreements specifically.” Stanley, 2017 WL 5068444 at *1 (quoting Smolinski v. Ruben & Michelle 

Enters. Inc., No. 16-cv-13612, 2017 WL 835592, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2017)).

Generally, there is a strong presumption in favor of open court records. Shane Grp., Inc. v. 

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). The parties have offered no

reasons why their situation would justify putting their settlement under seal. “The public has a keen 

interest in the outcome of FLSA litigation, and as such, ‘sealing a FLSA settlement rarely, if ever, will 

be shown to outweigh the public right to access of judicial documents.’” Stanley, 2017 WL 5068444

at *1 (quoting Smolinski, 2017 WL 835592 at *3); see also Steele v. Staffmark Invs., LLC, 172 

F.Supp.3d 1024, 1031 (W.D. Tenn. 2016) (“[T]his Court is unwilling to approve a settlement or 

dismissal of FLSA claims where the terms of the settlement are not available to the public.”).

Accordingly, the joint motion to file under seal (doc. 70) is DENIED.

s/ James L. Graham

JAMES L. GRAHAM

United States District Judge

DATE: July 22, 2019
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FORWARD AIR, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-744 

 JUDGE SARAH D. MORRISON

 Plaintiffs, Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

v. 

HUNTER LOGISTIC SERVICES, INC., 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation 

(R&R) issued by the Magistrate Judge on March 11, 2019. (ECF No. 56.) In that filing, the 

Magistrate Judge recommended that this action against John Doe Defendants be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to substitute their real names and effect service pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections have 

been filed. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 

56) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE John Doe Defendants from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Sarah D. Morrison 

 SARAH D. MORRISON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION

I, James Joyce, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Aethlon Medical, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

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

         c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter 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 functions):

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

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

Date: August 11, 2006

                                             /s/ James A. Joyce
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             James A. Joyce
                                             Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 6, 2006
    
    /s/ A. Bradley GabbardA. Bradley GabbardExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

John Ley

Clerk of Court 

June 14, 2012 

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Steven M. Larimore

United States District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1807

Appeal Number: 10-12750 -DD ; 10-12752 -DD ; 10-12997 -DD ;11-12215-DD 11-12455

-DD 

Case Style: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, et al v. New Hope Sugar Co., et al

District Court Docket No: 1:04-cv-21448-ASG

LIMITED REMAND

Enclosed is a certified copy of an order remanding the referenced appeal for further

proceedings. JURISDICTION OF THIS APPEAL IS BEING RETAINED BY THE

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.

This case will be held in abeyance and monitored in the Eleventh Circuit pending disposition

of remand proceedings in your court. 

Upon completion of remand proceedings, please promptly send a certified copy of the ORDER

ON REMAND accompanied by an updated indexed district court docket sheet to this office. 

Sincerely,

JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court

Reply to: Tonya L. Richardson, DD/jsc

Phone #: (404) 335-6176

CLK-3 DC Letter with Ltd Remand order

Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 1 of 1

1 of 10

JUNE 14 2012

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 1 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 1 of 9

2 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 2 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 2 of 9

3 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 3 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 3 of 9

4 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 4 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 4 of 9

5 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 5 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 5 of 9

6 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 6 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 6 of 9

7 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 7 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 7 of 9

8 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 8 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 8 of 9

9 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 9 of 10
Case: 11-12215 Date Filed: 06/14/2012 Page: 9 of 9

10 of 10

Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 651 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2012 Page 10 of 10
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                               
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 1996 (unaudited) and the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Six Months Ended 
June 30, 1996 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference 
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                       642
<INVENTORY>                                      3,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,833
<PP&E>                                           1,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,214
<BONDS>                                            404
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,617
<SALES>                                          6,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,720
<CGS>                                            3,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    206
<INCOME-TAX>                                       412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (206)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
            

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Defense Technology Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), we,
Daniel McPhee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Philip
J. Rauch, Chief Financial 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/ Daniel McPhee
----------------------------
Daniel McPhee, President and
Chief Executive Officer
October 4, 2004

/s/ Philip J. Rauch
--------------------------------
Philip J. Rauch, Chief Financial
Officer
October 4, 2004
#### Black *v.*Tompkins.

Opinion delivered February 27, 1897.

Usury — Building Association Loan. — A.n agreement by a borrowing member of a building and loan association to pay monthly instal-ments as dues on his stock, and also to pay legal interest on the amount of the loan in monthly instalments, until the stock shall attain to par .value, is not usurious.

*503Appeal from Drew Chancery Court.

James ff. Robinson, Chancellor.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is a suit in equity to foreclose a mortgage given to secure a loan made by a building association. H. P. Tompkins was the owner of ten shares of stock in “The American Building, Loan & Tontine Savings Association,” of the par value of $100 per share. He borrowed from said association the sum of $500 on his ten shares of stock'; transferred the stock to the association, and promised to continue to pay to said association, as he had been doing, $6 per month from and after the date of said loan as assessments or dues on said stock; and also to pay to said association interest on said $500 at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum in monthly instal-ments until paid stock should attain to full or par value. To secure the payment of said dues and interest, he and his wife, Rilen Tompkins, conveyed to plaintiff, R. J. Black, as trustee of said association, certain real estate situated in the town of Monticello, Ark. Tompkins afterwards died, and default was made in the payment of said dues and interest. This suit was brought to foreclose said trust deed.

The defendants set up the plea of usury. The evidence showed that Tompkins borrowed the money from the association to pay off a” mortgage upon his homestead. The chancellor found that a greater rate of interest than 10 per cent, was contracted for, and that the deed- was void for usury. A decree was thereupon entered cancelling the trust deed.

*Geo. Gillham*for appellant.

*Z. T. Wood*for appellee.

Appellant’s association was not a *bona fide*building association; usurious *interest*was exacted; and the taking stock, etc., was a mere device or shift to cover *504usury. 56 Ark. 320; 55 *id.*270; 47 *id.*287. Authorities and precedents for the decree in this case are not lacking. 35 Pa. 470; 84 *id.*212; 7 Neb. 173; 75 N. C. 292; 77 *id.*145; 24 Conn. 153; 48 Iowa, 390; 55 *id.*424; 12 Rich. *Eq.*124; 15 S. C. 462; 2 Coldw. 418; 14 Lea, 677; 41 Md. 418; 1 Cent. Rep. 486; 64 Md. 338; 51 *id.*201; 61 *id.*600; 68 *id.*52: 25 Ohio St. 208; 29 *id.*92; 81 Tex. 369; 19 W. Ya. 684; 69 Ala. 419; 54 Ark. 56.

Per Curiam.

The question of law involved in this action was decided in *Reeve*v. *Ladies' Building Association,*56 Ark. 335, and *Taylor*v. *Van Buren Building Association, ib.*340. According to the opinion in those cases, there was and is no usury in the contracts sued on.

The decree of the chancery court is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to the court to foreclose the mortgage sued on; ascertaining the amount due thereon according to the rule stated in *Roberts*v. *American Building & Loan Association,*62 Ark. 572.
Company sanitized 

Does not contain Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)

Appendix D

Draft Facility Report on Product Content
2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program 

Draft Facility Report on Product Content

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Identify the product (e.g fluoropolymer dispersion) for which you are submitting information:

Product name:___Fluorinated Surfactant (Polymeric)_______

Product description (including concentrations of perfluoroalkyl chemicals 

identified in Section IV below and year of production): 

CBI

II. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

Identify the company and location of the facility submitting information:

Company name:_AGC SEIMI CHEMICAL CO.,LTD

Site location:3-2-10,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan

 :2276-2,Nada,Hirai,Kashima City,Ibaraki,314-0012 Japan

Identify a company technical contact who can respond to inquiries about the information 

submitted:

Technical contact:_Shunji Odaka 

Phone: _+81-467-82-4398____

Address: 3-2-10,Chigasaki,Chigasaki City,Kanagawa,253-8585 Japan

III. PRODUCTION

Calendar year for which you are reporting: Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2011

 (Normalized data based on year end run rate.)

Provide the amount of the product for the reporting year at each specific site:

 Imported ___0____kgs/yr

Manufactured _CBI_kgs/yr (As active ingredients)
IV. PRODUCT CONTENT

A. CONCENTRATIONS OF RELEVANT PERFLUOROALKYL CHEMICALS

Please provide the concentrations (ppb) of various perfluoroalkyl chemicals in your product. 

For chemicals for which you do not have actual data, please provide range estimates.

 CBI

 

B. ANALYTICAL METHODS

Analyses should be conducted using the most accurate instrumentation and procedures available 

as of the time of testing. Please provide detailed information on the methods used (including 

analytical standards used, sampling, sample treatment, analysis), assumptions made, 

uncertainties and detection limits (LOD, LOQ) for the data provided.

・ PFOA content in fluorinated acrylate used as monomer was analyzed by LC-MS.

・ 8-2OH and 8-2 Olefin contents in fluorinated acrylate used as monomer was analyzed by GC-MS.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.42


                                                March 27, 2000



      Mr. Dean Bernstein
      c/o New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.
      1120 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, New York  10036

Re:   Employment Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of September 25, 1998,
by and between Dean Bernstein ("Executive") and New Plan Excel Realty Trust,
Inc. (the "Company")


Dear Mr. Bernstein:

In reference to the Employment Agreement and in connection with the replacement
of Arnold Laubich as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, please be advised
that the Company is hereby providing you with written notice of two automatic
one year renewals under the Agreement. Accordingly, the "Employment Period"
under the Agreement shall continue through December 31, 2003, subject to the
extension provisions contained in Section 2 of the Agreement.

                                              Sincerely,

                                              New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.


                                              By: /s/ Glenn J. Rufrano
                                                  ------------------------------

                                              Name: Glenn J. Rufrano
                                                    ----------------------------

                                              Its: CEO
                                                   ----------------------------
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00209-CV

In re Ruben Guerrero

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Ruben Guerrero has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. In the

petition, Guerrero asks this Court to direct the Travis County District Clerk to deliver to the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals documents concerning a habeas corpus proceeding filed

pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 11.07, § 3(c) (West Supp. 2011).

Article 11.07 vests exclusive appellate jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of

habeas corpus in felony cases in the court of criminal appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals

for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319,

320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding). Thus, intermediate appellate courts have no

jurisdiction in such matters. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2006, orig. proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001,

orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

___________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Filed: April 12, 2012

2