alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 March 5, 2012

t0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

143850

PAMELA SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143850 COA: 301021 WCAC: 09-000216 MORRISON MANAGEME NT SPECIALISTS, INC., a/k/a COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., and ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS/NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY/AIG, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 26, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 99.1

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

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated:  November 13, 2002 |                                        
|------------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                          | /s/  Thomas E. Mara                    
|                          |                                        
|                          | Thomas E. Mara, Chief Executive Officer
Anthony CONTI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0653

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Craig VICTORIAN v. James LEBLANC and Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

NO. 2017-CI-0517

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





(18 U.S.C. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Elephant Talk Communications, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:





(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  March 30, 2011
/s/ Steven van der VeldenSteven van der Velden, President and Chief Executive Officer





This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40714

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ERNESTO MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-97-1

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Ernesto Mendoza has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Mendoza has not filed a response and has been removed from the

United States. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40714 Document: 00511891267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
No. 11-40714

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, see

5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis,

483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2007).

2

Case: 11-40714 Document: 00511891267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

3/12/2019

 Southern District of Ohio

Heather Sayger

3:18-cv-244

Commissioner of Social Security

✔ The parties’ Joint Motion to Remand to the Commissioner ACCEPTED; Judgment in Plaintiff’s

favor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58; REMANDED to the Social Security Administration, pursuant to sentence

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further consideration; case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

✔ Thomas M. Rose

Remand
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James GOODPASTURE, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 16-6670

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Decided: September 8, 2017

Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Michael G. James, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Goodpasture appeals the distinct court’s order civilly committing him as a sexually dangerous person, pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247-4248 (2012). Goodpasture argues that the district court clearly erred in finding he would have serious difficulty in refraining from child molestation if released,1 in analyzing several aggravating factors, and in failing to properly account, for some mitigating factors.2 We affirm.

“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings clear error and its legal conclusions *de novo.” United States v. Bolander,*722 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2013) (discussing standard of review). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendices and have carefully considered Goodpas-ture’s arguments, and we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Goodpasture would have serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released from incarceration. *See United States v. Wooden,*693 F.3d 440, 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (setting forth factors courts consider in making such determination); *see also Bolander,*722 F.3d at 207 (stating that, when court’s determination “is based on [its] decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con*185tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

1

. Goodpasture concedes that he meets the first two criteria for civil commitment: he has engaged in child molestation in the past and presently suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder.

2

. With regard to the remaining claims on appeal, we conclude that Goodpasture has waived review of his conclusory arguments. *See Projects Mgmt. Co. v. Dyncorp Int'l LLC,*734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating that argument is waived when party "fail[s] to support its contentions with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which [it] relies” (internal quotation marks omitted)); *Eriline Co.*S.A. *v. Johnson,*440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006) (single, concluso-ry sentence insufficient to preserve issue for appellate review).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of The BISYS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the nine months ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          38,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,126
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,921
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,115
<PP&E>                                          99,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 369,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,735
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           539
<OTHER-SE>                                     257,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   369,836
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               335,184
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 796
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,608
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,410
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
Norberto VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-433

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Ross Jay LAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-534

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2018]

Ross Jay Lawson, Lowell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See**Fitzpatrick v. State* , 868 So.2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA), *rev. denied* , 891 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2004).

Ciklin, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Franklin Andres VIDES-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41717 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Franklin Andres Vides-Espinoza, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Franklin Andres Vides-Espi-*133noza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with. Anders *v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Vides-Espinoza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We coiicur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has-determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *133the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 10
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 10
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 10
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 10
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 10
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 10
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1479 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1479

 To prohibit the use of Federal funds relating to rejoining the Joint 
    Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2021

   Mr. Barr introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of Federal funds relating to rejoining the Joint 
    Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Iran Nuclear Deal Advice and Consent 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
obligated or expended in furtherance of rejoining the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, by Iran 
and by France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the People's Republic 
of China, the United Kingdom, and the United States (including all 
implementing materials and agreements related to the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action) (in this section referred to as the 
``JCPOA'') unless the Biden Administration submits in writing to the 
House of Representatives and the Senate its commitment to submitting 
any JCPOA successor agreement to the Senate for advise and consent as a 
treaty rather than as an international agreement.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                          AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                  (Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)


                                                              Nine Months Ended
                                                                September 30,
                                                            --------------------
                                                                          1998
                                                              1999      restated
                                                            --------    --------
Income before income taxes and preferred dividends          $262,688    $203,505
Add fixed charges:
     Interest expense                                        420,478     346,909
     One-third rentals                                         3,516       2,786
                                                            --------    --------
        Total fixed charges                                  423,994     349,695
                                                            --------    --------
Income as adjusted                                          $686,682    $553,200
                                                            --------    --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges                                1.62        1.58
                                                            ========    ========

Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis                $  4,744    $  4,744
Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends           $428,738    $354,439
                                                            --------    --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges and preferred stock
dividends                                                       1.60        1.56
                                                            ========    ========
INFORMIX CORPORATION


EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER-SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(in thousands, except per-share data)

                                                       FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                       1996        1995 (1)       1994 (1) (2)
<S>                                                    <C>         <C>            <C>
Net income used for earnings per-share calculation     $ 97,818    $ 97,644       $ 61,913

Net Income Per Common Share:

Weighted average outstanding shares                     149,310     145,062         137,742

Net effect of outstanding options                         6,263       5,565           5,040
Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding                      155,573     150,627         142,782


Net income per-share                                   $   0.63    $   0.65        $   0.43

</TABLE>

Fully diluted computation not presented since such amounts differ by less
than 3 percent of the net income per share amounts shown above.


Notes:

(1)     Amounts presented have been restated to reflect the Company's
business combination with Illustra Information Technologies, Inc.
as a pooling-of-interests.

(2)     Share and per-share information has been restated to reflect a
two-for-one stock split (effected in the form of a stock dividend) which
was effective June 26, 1995.
Russell C. BRADSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2729

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Charles E. STALLWORTH, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1741

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                               28,284 
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     32,131 
<PP&E>                                            1,011,887 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      910,020  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      133,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               154,614
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        133,998 
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    139,892 
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   20,548 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      27,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  27,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
Cynque THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.