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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

November 25, 2013

p1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2013

147429

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147429

COA: 312438

Ottawa CC: 11

- 035720

- FH

JERRY BROWN JENNINGS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2013 order

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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

GREGORY MARK DUNBAR, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 WM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 OF
CARIBINER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORUM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,385
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,378
<PP&E>                                         204,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (99,239)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   660,277
<SALES>                                        156,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,208
<CGS>                                          121,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.60)



</TABLE>
#### ILI and PALAITA of Ofu, Plaintiffs v. TOGIAI of Ofu, Defendant

No. 4-1925

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Matai Name: “Mao”]

February 6, 1929

JAMES FOXALL, LUTU and PELE, *Judges*

To try the right of Togiai of Ofu to Register Matai Name “Mao”

JUDGMENT

The above case came on to be heard before the High Court, with Judges Foxall, Lutu and Pele sitting, at Tau on Tuesday, February 5, 1929 at 10:00 A.M.

The Court inquired as to whether or not the parties to the controversy were willing to have the case continued for twenty-four hours, during which time they would go into conference and attempt to amicably agree upon a holder of the name. It was explained that all those who were interested in the name, no doubt, knew who was entitled to hold the name, but if they could not come to an amicable settlement of the matter, the Court would decide the issue.

*414Both sides agreed to retire and discuss the question, reporting to the Court the following morning February 6, 1929.

At 10:00 A.M., Feb. 6, 1929 the Court again convened. Sei, for Togiai who offered the name for registration, and Ili, the objector, informed the Court that both sides had unanimously agreed that Ili should be the holder of the Matai Name “Mao.”

The Court informed the parties hereto that their decision should have no weight regarding any future holder of the name.

It is therefore adjudged and decreed that the Matai Name Mao be given to Ili, and that the Court costs of this action, amounting to $25.00, be divided between Togiai and Ili, the parties hereto.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Louis DeLeen, Appellant.

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*311
      *Jacob Zelenko*for appellant.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Irving Galt, James Amadei*and *Conrad A. Johnson*of counsel) for respondent.

*312
      *Per Curiam.*

Under section 203 of the Correction Law, the court had power to impose upon appellant an indeterminate sentence of confinement in the penitentiary. Such a penitentiary sentence was, however, the limit of the punishment that could be meted out to the offender. He could not, in addition thereto, be ordered to pay a fine.

The judgments should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Court of Special Sessions, for the imposition on appellant of a lawful sentence.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel GUARDIOLA Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50264 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 6, 2017

■ Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Manuel Guardiola, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Guardiola 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Guardiola has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guardi-ola’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to *238withdraw 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 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles Richard BURKS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10303 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Charles Richard Burks, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Charles Richard Burks 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). Burks has not filed a response. 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 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 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Wagering, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of us certifies as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to our
respective knowledge, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |  |  |                       |  |        |  |                                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  June 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Victor J. Salerno
|                     |  |  |  |                       |  | By:    |  | Victor J. Salerno                                                                                 
|                     |  |  |  |                       |  | Title: |  | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating
Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors

|                     |  |  |  |                          |  |        |  |                                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date:  June 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Timothy F. Lockinger
|                     |  |  |  |                          |  | By:    |  | Timothy F. Lockinger                                      
|                     |  |  |  |                          |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and
Director
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6644 

To amend title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 

to provide for the timely payment of black lung benefits pending liability 

determinations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) introduced 

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

the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and Health 

Act of 1977 to provide for the timely payment of black 

lung benefits pending liability determinations, 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 ‘‘John White Ensuring 

5 Timely Black Lung Benefits Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6644 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF BLACK LUNG BENEFITS PENDING LI2 ABILITY DETERMINATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 422(h) of the Federal 

4 Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 932(h)) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary of Labor’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘(1) The Secretary of Labor’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(2)(A) In any case in which a determination of li10 ability described in paragraph (1) has not been made with 

11 respect to a benefit determination for a miner by the date 

12 that is 60 days after the date of such a benefit determina13 tion, the Secretary shall pay the benefits to which the 

14 miner is entitled under section 422 out of the fund (as 

15 defined in section 402(h)). 

16 ‘‘(B) In no case shall payment of benefits under this 

17 paragraph be construed to relieve any operator subse18 quently determined responsible for the payment of such 

19 benefits of repayment liability described in section 424(b). 

20 ‘‘(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘ben21 efit determination for a miner’ means a determination by 

22 the Secretary that the miner is totally disabled due to 

23 pneumoconiosis or that the death of the miner was due 

24 to pneumoconiosis.’’. 

3 

•HR 6644 IH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURES FROM

2 TRUST FUND.—Section 9501(d)(1) of the Internal Rev3 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

5 the end; 

6 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub7 paragraph (C); and 

8 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(B) a determination of liability described 

11 in paragraph (1) of section 422(h) of such Act 

12 has not been made with respect to a benefit de13 termination for a miner (as defined in para14 graph (2)(C) of such section) by the date that 

15 is 60 days after the date of such a benefit de16 termination, or’’. 

Æ
Staunton

#### Pauline M. Hensley v. Oliver Gordon Hensley.

September 4, 1956.

Record No. 4548.

Present, All the Justices.

The opinion states the case.

*Julian K.*Hickman, for the appellant.

No brief nor argument for appellee.

Hudgins, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Pauline M. Hensley, in her bill for divorce, charged her husband, Oliver Gordon Hensley, with non-support, cruelty and desertion. The husband filed no answer to the bill and made no appearance when the depositions were taken. From a decree denying the divorce complainant obtained this appeal.

The uncontradicted testimony shows that when the parties were married on April 27, 1955, the wife was a widow 47 years of age; the husband was divorced and 41 years of age. Immediately after the marriage the husband moved into his wife’s home and lived there *415until June 6, 1955. During that time he contributed nothing to her support, frequently drank to excess, and from time to time cursed, abused and vilified her. On June 4th or 5th he not only cursed his wife but charged her with improper relations with other men. This she indignantly denied and ran out of the house with her husband chasing her. He caught her and twisted her arm, and while so doing Basil G. Reedy and his wife, Ruby Reedy, who had heard her screams, came to her assistance and prevented the husband from inflicting further injuries upon her.

Ruby Reedy is a sister of Oliver Gordon Hensley and testified that she lives near complainant and that they visited back and forth every day; that complainant had earnesdy tried to make a success of her marriage and a happy home for her husband; that he contributed nothing to the support of the family, drank to excess periodically and when intoxicated he is cross and unreasonable in his demands, and that he had not been engaged in any gainful occupation since his marriage.

The testimony of the wife as to non-support, desertion, cruelty and the use of vile and abusive language is not denied and is corroborated by the testimony of four witnesses.

We deem it unnecessary to make a more detailed statement of the evidence. It fully sustains the allegations of the bill. The decree denying complainant a divorce is set aside and reversed, and a decree granting her a divorce *a mensa et thoro*will be entered by this court, and the case remanded with directions to the trial court to grant complainant a decree of divorce *a vinculo matrimonii*if such action is later justified.

A fee of $150.00 is hereby awarded complainant’s counsel as a part of the costs of this appeal.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### Farzana SHEIKH, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lesliey D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Court; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15692

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*669Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed October 20, 2017

Farzana Sheikh, M.D., Pro Se

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Farzana Sheikh, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with her state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sheikh’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because her claims constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment. *See Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing application of *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,*474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH N O

. 2 - 0 9 - 3 8 9 - C V
I N R E B U F O R D S C O T T J R

. R E L A T O R

- - - - - - - - - - - - O R I G I N A L P R O C E E D I N G

- - - - - - - - - - - - 

### M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - T h e c o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d r e l a t o r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f m a n d a m u s a n d m o t i o n f o r e m e r g e n c y s t a y a n d i s o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t r e l i e f s h o u l d b e d e n i e d

. A c c o r d i n g l y ,
r e l a t o r ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f m a n d a m u s a n d m o t i o n f o r e m e r g e n c y s t a y a r e d e n i e d

. R e l a t o r s h a l l p a y a l l c o s t s o f t h i s o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g , f o r w h i c h l e t e x e c u t i o n i s s u e

.

B O B M C C O Y J U S T I C E
P A N E L : M C C O Y , L I V I N G S T O N , a n d M E I E R , J J

. M E I E R , J

. w o u l d g r a n t

. D E L I V E R E D : M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 1 0

1  S e e T e x
. R

. A p p

. P

. 4 7

. 4

.
<Page>

                                                                 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, Eleanor L. Thomas, President (chief executive officer) of
the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing
Owner'), of Prudential Securities Strategic Trust (the 'Trust'), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) The Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
       2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
       hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Trust.

/s/ Eleanor L. Thomas
------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor L. Thomas
President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner
August 14, 2003
#### NAING AUNG MON Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States of America Respondent

No. 16-4476

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Filed: September 15, 2017

Naing Aung Mon, Pro Se

Anthony John Messuri, Litigation Counsel, OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Naing Aung Mon, a native of Burma, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) up*483holding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to terminate a prior .grant of deferral from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We lack jurisdiction, because the underlying removal order was based on the determination that Mon was removable due to his aggravated felony conviction, and he has not raised any constitutional claims or questions of law for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(C)-(D) (criminal alien bar); Gallimore v. Holder, 715 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir. 2013) (applying criminal alien bar to order denying CAT deferral). The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.