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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 3, 2010 

p1124 

Order 

 

December 3, 2010 

141245 

DELSHONE MAJORS, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of DAVID EUGENE 

MAJORS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141245 

 COA: 289972 

Wayne CC: 07-710697-NO 

OFFICER LAVON HOWELL, 

Defendant, 

and 

TROOPER RICHARD FELL, TROOPER JAMES 

GRADY, and TROOPER TIMOTHY RAJALA, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Adrienne WALKER-PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Maryland Transit Administration, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-1226

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

*874John H. Morris, Jr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Jennifer L. Katz, Eric S. Hartwig, Assistant Attorneys General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrienne Walker-Pittman appeals the district court’s order granting the Maryland Department of Transportation’s and the Maryland Transportation Administration’s motion to dismiss Walker-Pittman’s retaliation and race and gender discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); retaliation and age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 to 634 (West 2008 *&*Supp. 2016); retaliation and disability discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 7961 (West 2008 & Supp. 2016); and unlawful employment practices claims, brought pursuant to the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (West 2014). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Walker-Pittman v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., No. 1:14-cv-00202-CCB, 2015 WL 419806 (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
David H. VINCENT v. Joan Hankins RICKMAN

2016-CT-00457-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 24, 2018 Closed: April 5, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition For Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7711

JAMES CURTIS WILLIAMSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

THEODIS BECK, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00022-WO-PTS) 

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Curtis Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

James Curtis Williamson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Williamson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

2 
3 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EX PARTE Laranden Dewayne PERRY

1160253 (CR-15-1313)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

_____________________________________________________________________________________

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Truck, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Darron R. Ming, Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my            knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | October 31, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Darron R. Ming                                               |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   | **Darron R. Ming**                                               |   |
|   |             |   | *Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer* |   |
|   |             |   |                                                             |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to USA Truck, Inc. and will be retained by USA Truck, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Evaristo REYES-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 14-41181 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Lauretta Drake Bahry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Evaristo Reyes-Diaz raises an argument that is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In *Gonzalez-Longoria,*we held that 18 U.S.C. *915§ 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). *Id.*at 672. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EX-10.28





 Exhibit 10.28 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 

2017 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 

(As approved by the shareholders April 18, 2017) 

Pursuant to the reserved power of amendment contained in Article 16 of the Fifth Third Bancorp 2017 Incentive Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended effective December 17, 2018 by changing Section 2.1(g) of the Plan to read as follows: 

(g)    “Change in Control” shall be deemed to have occurred if the conditions set forth in any
one of the following paragraphs shall have been satisfied: 
 (i)    any Person (other than a trustee or
other fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit plan of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the common shareholders of the Company in substantially the same proportions as their
ownership of Stock of the Company), as a result of acquiring, or during any 12-month period having acquired, voting securities of the Company, is or becomes the Beneficial Owner, directly or indirectly, of
securities of the Company representing 30% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then outstanding securities; or 

(ii)    during any 12-month period (not including any period prior
to the Effective Date), individuals who at the beginning of such period constitute the Board and any new Director, whose election by the Board or nomination for election by the Company’s shareholders, was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Directors then still in office who either were Directors at the beginning of the period or whose election or nomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any reason to
constitute a majority thereof; or 
 (iii)    the consummation of (1) the sale or disposition of all
or substantially all the Company’s assets; or (2) a merger or consolidation of the Company with any other corporation, other than a merger or consolidation which would result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately
prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity), at least 60% of the combined voting power of the voting securities of the Company (or such surviving
entity) outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation; or 
 (iv)    the shareholders of the
Company approve a plan of complete liquidation of the Company. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fifth Third Bancorp has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized representative the 17th day of December, 2018. 
  

			
	 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Shaffer

		 	Robert P. Shaffer, Chief Human Resources Officer, EVP
Edward W. BRONNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2754 CASE NO.: 2D17-2755

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 3CIComplete Compliance Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Matthew D. Peiffer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: February 14, 2005 | /s/ Matthew D. Peiffer                            |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Matthew D. Peiffer                                |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and  Treasurer |

 

----
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 MedSource Technologies, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph J. Caffarelli, Senior Vice
President -- Finance and Chief Financial Officer of MedSource 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:

     (1)  such 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 such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of MedSource.

Dated:  September 17, 2002

                                         /s/ Joseph J. Caffarelli
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Joseph J. Caffarelli
                                         Senior Vice President -- Finance and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6043 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to raise public 

awareness for skilled trade programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Ms. BONAMICI (for herself and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to raise public awareness for skilled trade programs, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Access to Career Coun5 seling for Every Secondary Student Act’’ or the ‘‘ACCESS 

6 Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6043 IH

1 SEC. 2. CAREER COUNSELING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS 

2 FOR SKILLED TRADE PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES.—Section 129(b)(2) of 

4 the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 

5 3164(b)(2)) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs 

6 (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively, 

7 and inserting after subparagraph (C) the following: 

8 ‘‘(D) carrying out public awareness cam9 paigns and public service announcements, in10 cluding social media campaigns and other forms 

11 of media, about career and technical education 

12 programs and programs provided by commu13 nity-based organizations that prepare eligible 

14 youth for high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand 

15 industry sectors or occupations in current or 

16 emerging professions (including skilled 

17 trades);’’. 

18 (b) LOCAL ELEMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS.—Sec19 tion 129(c)(2)(M) of the Workforce Innovation and Op20 portunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3164(c)(2)(M)) is amended to 

21 read as follows: 

22 ‘‘(M) services and opportunities that pro23 vide labor market and employment information 

24 about high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand in25 dustry sectors or occupations in current or 

26 emerging professions (including skilled trades) 

3 

•HR 6043 IH

1 available in the local area, such as career 

2 awareness, career counseling, and career explo3 ration services; and’’. 

Æ
Andy Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas J. Baldwin, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 15, 2005

 
|   | /s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas J. Baldwin       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Anthony PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11444

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ZACKARY IKAIKA BRYTON THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-111-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Zackary Ikaika Bryton Thompson appeals the within-guidelines 262-

month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of sexual 

exploitation of children by production of child pornography, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). He argues that his sentence was procedurally 

unreasonable, because the district court failed to address mitigating factors 

and did not sufficiently state reasons for the sentence, and substantively 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11444 Document: 00515106188 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
No. 18-11444

2

unreasonable, because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing 

goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, he contends that § 2251(a) is 

unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause did not grant Congress the 

power to enact the statute.

Thompson has not demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion by imposing a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In these circumstances, the 

district court did not procedurally err by failing to explicitly address 

Thompson’s arguments for mitigation. See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 

F.3d 347, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sanchez, 667 F.3d 555, 568 

(5th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the district court adequately stated reasons because 

a within-guidelines sentence requires “little explanation.” United States v. 

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). As to substantive reasonableness, 

Thompson has not overcome the presumption of reasonableness that applies to 

within-guidelines sentences by showing that the sentence failed to account for 

the mitigating factors or represented a clear error of judgment in balancing the 

sentencing factors. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 

2012). Finally, Thompson waived his claim that § 2251(a) is unconstitutional 

by entering an unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Sealed 

Appellant, 526 F.3d 241, 242-43 (5th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-11444 Document: 00515106188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
Taylor Amari MCLEOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3576

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Roland Ruben GUERRERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Davon Lashon DAVIS v. STATE

CR-16-0499

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Richard LAWSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Maryse LAWSON, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Damien Jamar WOODEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-540

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.