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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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 29, 2016

s0922 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2016

152385 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152385

COA: 326911

Kent CC: 08

- 007472

- FC

SPENCER LEE WILLIAMS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4 , 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, James R. Lavelle,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Watchit Media, Inc.’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Watchit Media, Inc.

 

 
| Date: May 22, 2006 | By:    | /s/ James R. Lavelle                                |   |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | James R. Lavelle                                    |
|               |   | Chairman of the Board  and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

1

----
Abatement Order filed June 2, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00130-CV

____________

IN RE TREY MELCHER AND YVONNE MELCHER, ET AL, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-52524

ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 19, 2006, relators1 filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West. 2004). In the petition, relators 

requested that this court compel the Honorable Elaine Palmer, Judge of the 215th

 1 Relators are Trey Melcher and Yvonne Evie Melcher, Trustees of the Evie Melcher NonExempt Trust; Melcher Investments; Bill E. Lewis and Richard L. Kerr, Jr., Co-Trustees of the 

Lucille Birmingham Melcher Management Trust and the Leroy Melcher Marital Deduction Trust, 

and former Co-Trustees of the Evie Melcher Non-Exempt Trust, and as for Co-Executors of the 

Estate of Lucille Birmingham Melcher (collectively, the “Melchers”).
District Court, Harris County, Texas, to set aside her August 28, 2015 order granting 

the supplemental motion for sanctions filed by Harris County in trial court cause 

number 2011-52524, styled Harris County, et al. v. S.K. Brothers, Inc., et al. 

On May 31, 2016, relators filed an agreed motion to abate this original 

proceeding for at least sixty days to allow the parties to explore settlement options. 

The agreed motion to abate is GRANTED. Accordingly, we issue the following 

order:

The original proceeding is abated for a period of sixty days from the date of 

this order, at which time relators and real parties in interest are directed to advise the 

court of the status of the case. The original proceeding is treated as a closed case, 

and removed from this court’s active docket. The original proceeding will be 

reinstated on this court’s active docket when the parties file a motion to dismiss the 

original proceeding or other dispositive motion. This court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the original proceeding, or the court may reinstate 

the original proceeding on its own motion.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
Form of Award Letter for 2008 Director Compensation Plan


 Exhibit 10.5 

[Date] 
 Director Name 
 Dear Name: 

Effective upon your re-election to the Anadarko Board of Directors (the “Board”) by our stockholders on
                    , you were granted              Restricted Shares,
which are scheduled to vest on the fifth anniversary from the date of grant. Provided you remain a member of the Board until [fifth anniversary of the date of grant] (“Vesting Period”), all Restricted Shares will vest. 

These Restricted Shares are subject to all terms and conditions of the Company’s 2008 Director Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”), the summary (prospectus) of the Plan and the provisions of this letter. Unless defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning assigned to them under the Plan. A copy of the plan summary is attached for your
reference. 
 At the end of the Vesting Period, the Restricted Shares that vest on such date shall be delivered to you in the
form of unrestricted shares of Anadarko common stock (less any shares that may be required to be withheld to satisfy any applicable Company tax withholding obligations). At that time, your shares of common stock will be either delivered to you in
certificate form or deposited into a brokerage account of your choice. 
 If you voluntarily resign from the Board, all of your
unvested Restricted Shares will be immediately forfeited. If your service on the Board is terminated as a result of death or a Permanent Disability (as defined in the Plan) all of your unvested Restricted Shares will immediately vest. In addition,
in the event of a Change of Control (as defined in the Plan), all of your unvested Restricted Shares will immediately vest, unless you continue to serve as a member of the Board or on the board of directors of the Company’s successor and in
that event, such Restricted Stock shall continue to vest as provided under this Award Agreement. 
 Your Restricted Shares may
not be transferred, sold, assigned, pledged, exchanged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred, or disposed of to the extent then subject to restrictions. You will have voting rights and receive dividends during the restricted period. Your
Restricted Shares shall be counted toward your stock ownership requirements. Once your Restricted Shares have vested and shares of Anadarko common stock have been delivered to you (whether in certificate or book-entry form), you are free to sell,
gift or otherwise dispose of such shares; provided that you comply with the applicable restrictions under the Company’s Insider Trading Policy. 
 Please note that this letter serves as your Award Agreement and is for your personal files. You are not required to sign and return any documents. 

If you have any questions on this grant, please call
                             at
                            . 

Sincerely,
#### VILI, Plaintiff v. UO, Defendant

No. 54-1914

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Leusi” in Puapua]

January 30, 1919

A. M. NOBLE, *Judge of the High Court;*and MOLIOO

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard before their Honors A. M. Noble and Molioo on .the 30th day of January, 1919, and it appearing to the Court that the subject matter of this action, to-wit; the land “LEUSI” was by a former judgment of the High Court of American Samoa, on the 9th day of January, 1908, in a certain action entitled *Alapa & Nuutofia v. Uo-Sopoaga,*1 A.S.R. 154 (1907), ordered and adjudged to be the property of the defendant Uo-Sopoaga, in trust, however, for the use and benefit of his wife Yea and her children.

It is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged that the plaintiff take a non-suit.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged that the costs of this action, to-wit; $10.00 be taxed against the plaintiff in this action.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0346

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

STACY MICHAEL TRUJILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until April 8, 2020, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 6 2020

03/06/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0346
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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 18 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk September 18 , 2020

1 6 1 288 ( 3 2 )

PEGGY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

SC: 161288

v C O A: 351544

Washtenaw CC: 19

- 000746

- AA

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent

- Appellee

. _______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the University of Michigan Law School

Pediatric Advocacy Clinic to file a concurrence to the brief amicus curiae filed by the Legal

Services Association o f Michigan is GRANTED

. The concurrence submitted on

September 16 , 2020 , is accepted for filing

.
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

         The undersigned, David F. Struwas, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of DSL.net, Inc. (the "Company"), in connection with the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 and
filed on this date (the "Report"), hereby certifies pursuant to the requirements
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act") and fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Report. This certification is being provided pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code and is not to be deemed
a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the
Exchange Act or to form a part of the Company's public disclosure in the United
States or otherwise.


By:  /s/ David F. Struwas
---------------------------------
David F. Struwas
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
DSL.net, Inc.
Date: April 14, 2004
J. S06014/15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.H.G., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: L.A.L., MOTHER : No. 813 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree entered February 5, 2014 In t he Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP000222

- 2013; FID #51

- FN

- 002419

- 2011

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.C.G., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: L.A.L., MOTHER : No. 814 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree entered February 5, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP000223

- 2013; FID #51

- FN

- 002419

- 2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, and FITZGERALD, * JJ. DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FI TZGERALD, J.: FILED MARCH 05, 2015 I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2). However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusions pertaining to Subsection 2511(b). As the majority states, there was “little, if any” evidence presented about the bond between Mother and the Children. My review of the termination hearing transcript reveals the following. DHS social work service manager Sakinah Jones testified positivel y about the

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J. S06014/15

- 2

-

bond between Children and the foster parents, and stated that termination of Mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to the Children. See N.T., 2/5/14, at 37, 39

- 40, 46. However, there was no question posed to Ms. Jones, and no test imony from her, about the bond between Mother and the Children. The sole evidence about the interaction between Mother and the Children during visits was Ms. Jones’ testimony that the visits “appear to be appropriate in a supervised setting.” Id. at 53. While Mother testified at the hearing, she likewise did not testify about any bond with the Children. In its opinion, the trial court’s sole discussion under Subsection (b) was the Children’s bond with their foster parents, and Ms. Jones’ testimony that p ermanency and adoption were in the Children’s best interests. Id. at 5. However, the opinion was silent as to whether the Children had a bond with Mother. In light of the foregoing, I would remand for the court to conduct further evidentiary hearings and enter findings of fact and conclusion of law on this issue. See In re of K.Z.S. , 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating court: (1) must discern nature and status of parent

- child bond, paying close attention to effect on child of permanently severin g bond; (2) should also consider importance to child of continuity of relationships; and (3) must consider whether natural parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy existing, necessary and beneficial relationship)

.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned,  John D. White, Chief Financial Officer of Lone Star Steakhouse
& Saloon, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby certify, to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 6, 2005 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                             /s/ John D. White
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             John D. White
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             October 17, 2005
```
#### Isaac W. Edwards, Respondent, *v.*Abraham B. Conger, Appellant.

*O. P. Hoffman*for the respondent.

Affirmed by default, with costs.

Lott, Oh. 0., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 363
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10,333
<ALLOWANCES>                                           623
<INVENTORY>                                         53,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                              13,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     106,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            21,496
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       106,856
<SALES>                                              4,669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    32,882
<CGS>                                                2,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       30,124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     964
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,763
<INCOME-TAX>                                           688
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .23
        


</TABLE>
#### Thomas Durant, Executor, &c., Appellant, *versus*Ebenezer Starr and Another.

An executor named in a will cannot be used as a witness in the trial of the sanity of the testator, although he is a mere trustee, having no devise or legacy given him in the will.

This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate for this county, disallowing an instrument offered by the appellant, purporting to be the last will and testament of *Abigail Starr,*deceased.

[ * 528 ] * An issue was formed for the jury upon the sanity of

the supposed testatrix, at the time of her making the said supposed last will; and after the examination of the subscribing witnesses, and other testimony in support of the will, the appellant offered the Rev. Mr. *Grafton*as a witness, who was nominated one of the executors of the will.

The respondents objected to his admission. The appellant urged *473it, alleging that, as executor, he had no interest in supporting the will, being a mere trustee, and having no devise or legacy given him therein.

*But the Court*

considered him an incompetent witness, and he was not admitted to testify, *(a)*

(a)

**1 *Phill. Ev.*69, 70, 7th edit. — *Roscoe, Ev.*2d edit. 85. — *Sears*vs. *Dillingham & Al.*12 *Mass. Rep.*358. — *Nason*vs. *Thatcher & Al.*7 *Mass. Rep.*398.
```

[Federal Register: January 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 4)]
[Notices]               
[Page 968-969]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ja10-21]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 
Notice of Public Information Collections Being Reviewed by the 
U.S. Agency for International Development; Comments Requested

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making 
efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID

[[Page 969]]

invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this 
opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing 
information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 
1995. Comments are requested concerning: (a) whether the proposed or 
continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

DATES: Submit comments on or before March 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments via e-mail at tHembry@usaid.gov mail comments 
to: Tracy Hembry, Small Disadvantage Business Specialist, United States 
Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523 (202-712-4983).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Johnson, Bureau for 
Management. Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records 
Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07-106, 
RRB, Washington, DC 20523, (202) 712-1365 or via e-mail 
bjohnson@usaid.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB No.: OMB 0412-New.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Title: Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program Annual Report.
    Type of Review: New.
    Purpose: The mentors are required to report on the progress made 
under each of active Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Agreement annually 
throughout the term of the agreement. Each report is due 30 days after 
the end of each twelve-month period commencing with the start of the 
agreement.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Respondents: 30.
    Total Annual Responses: 30.
    Total Annual Hours Requested: 360.

    Dated: December 29, 2009.
Cynthia Staples,
Acting Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of 
Administrative Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. E9-31401 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
```
#### Terry Lee SCOTT, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent United States Postal Service, Intervenor

2015-3210

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2017

*941Kennan George Dandar, Dandar & Dan-dar, P.A., Tampa, FL, argued for petitioner.

Eric John Singley, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, JR., Claudia Burke. .

Katherine M. Smith, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC for respondent. Also represented by Bryan G. Polisuk.

(Moore, Clevenger, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EX PARTE Randall OTEY

(In re: Randall Otey v. Judge James P. Smith)

2160484

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 8, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 00275

- CR No. 05

- 15

- 00277

- CR

WES LEY GERARD JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F13

- 60306

- P , F12

- 16783

- P



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang

- Miers, and Whitehill

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal s . Appellant’s counsel has approved

the motion. Th e Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS th at th e appeal s be DISMISSED

and this decision be ce rtified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47

150275F.U05

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WESLEY GERARD JONES, Appellant

No. 05

- 15

- 00275

- CR V.

THE STAT E OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 60306

- P. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Francis, Lang

- Miers, and Whitehill.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 8th day of June, 2015.

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WESLEY GERARD JONES, Appellant

No. 05

- 15

- 00277

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd J udicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 16783

- P. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Francis, Lang

- Miers, and Whitehill.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 8th day of June, 2015.