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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

September 26, 2011 

h0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

142993 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142993 

 COA: 295851 

MARK DOUGLAS BALL, Kent CC: 09-001299-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2011 

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.
SERVED MARCH 11,2010 m oF IP^'^POMOH 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SO0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNO.FAA-2010-0193 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2008SO370045) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law^ Judge Isaac D. Benkin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

-Komiie A. Yoder 

Chief Adniinistrative Law Ju( 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No.*CP10EA0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Stephen J. Kolski 

Executive Vice President Operations & Corporate Affairs 

AirTran Airways, Inc. 

9955 AirTran Blvd 

Orlando, FL 32827 

TEL: 407-318-5108 

FAX: 407-318-5901 

Rashawn Rich George, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

^^^
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MAJESTIC GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a IVY PALM BEACH , Appellant,

v.

DIAMANTEBRUTO, INC. d/b/a RUMBASS NIGHT CLUB and MICHAEL E. HAMILTON , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 22

- 990

[ October 6, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; James Nutt , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2014

- CA

- 009156

- XXXX

- MB

.
Glenn H. Mitchell, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jason L. Cohen of Cohen Legal, West Palm Beach, for appell ee Michael E. Hamilton.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , C IKLIN and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8498 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8498

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize any abortion or 
 sterilization procedure performed without the informed consent of the 
  person on whom such procedure is performed, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2020

 Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself, Mrs. Walorski, and Ms. Foxx of 
 North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize any abortion or 
 sterilization procedure performed without the informed consent of the 
  person on whom such procedure is performed, 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 ``Informed Consent Act''.

SEC. 2. ABORTION AND STERILIZATION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 120. Abortion and sterilization without informed consent
    ``(a) Offense.--Whoever, under the circumstances described in 
subsection (b), knowingly performs an abortion or a sterilization 
procedure on a person without the informed consent of such person shall 
be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
    ``(b) Circumstances Described.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
circumstances described in this subsection are that--
            ``(1) the defendant is an officer, employee, or contractor 
        of the Federal Government;
            ``(2) the defendant is a recipient of Federal funds from 
        the Secretary of Health and Human Services or a program 
        administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; or
            ``(3) the conduct described in subsection (a) occurred in 
        or affected interstate commerce.
    ``(c) Exception.--This section does not apply to an abortion or 
sterilization procedure that, on the basis of the physician's good 
faith clinical judgment, is necessary to save the life of an individual 
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused 
by or arising from the pregnancy or reproductive organs of the 
individual, or for which a delay will create serious risk of 
substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 7 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``120. Abortion and sterilization without informed consent.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

              SUBSIDIARIES OF FIRST COMMUNITY CAPITAL CORPORATION


Name of Subsidiary                   Jurisdiction of Incorporation
------------------                   -----------------------------

First Community Bank, N.A.                    United States
First Community Capital Corporation
 of Delaware, Inc.                            Delaware
First Community Capital Trust I               Delaware
First Community Capital Trust II              Delaware
First Community Advisors, Inc.                Texas
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 828 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 828

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2019

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 25 Route 111 in Smithtown, New York, as the ``Congressman Bill 
                         Carney Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSMAN BILL CARNEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 25 Route 111 in Smithtown, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Congressman Bill Carney Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Congressman Bill Carney Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel Oludare ADENIRAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60328 c/w No. 17-60332 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Annette Williams, Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District, of • Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, Conor Mulroe, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gabriel Oludare Adentran, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

*306PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gabriel Oludare Adentran 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). Adentran 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 appeals present 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 APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHILDREN'S COMPREHENSIVE FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      26,651,000
<SECURITIES>                                   491,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,038,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,042,000
<PP&E>                                      19,507,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,184,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,775,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,327,000
<BONDS>                                      5,945,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,942,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,775,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,241,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,231,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             399,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,828,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   488,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,340,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION NO. 10984 FAA-2013-1075

US Department of Transportation Docket Operations 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION On behalf of Operation Migration, Inc. I respectfully request that the Request for Extension (Exemption No. 10984) submitted on March 31, 2016 be withdrawn from Docket No FAA-2013-1075. Submitted By:

_______________________ Talbot Martin, Esq. Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025
Tel. 202.679.6676 Fax 815.356.7042 tmm@barnettlegal.com As counsel for: Operation Migration, Inc.
jQuery(document).ready(function($) {
  $("body").addClass("video-bg-active");
  $(".video-bg-active #highlighted-bottom").vide({
    mp4: drupalSettings.levelplus.VideoBackgroundInit.PathToVideo_mp4,
    webm: drupalSettings.levelplus.VideoBackgroundInit.PathToVideo_webm,
    poster: drupalSettings.levelplus.VideoBackgroundInit.pathToVideo_jpg
  },{
    posterType: 'jpg',
    className: 'video-container'
  });
});
No. 11-10083.

#### Marshall *v.*Cartledge, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00064- CR NO. 03-14-00065- CR

Julie Ann Mart inez, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 391 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . D-0 9-0 032- SA & D-1 3-0 127- SB HO NORAB LE TH OM AS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant J ulie Ann Martinez was c harg ed in 2009 with the offe nse of forg ery of a financ ial instrument. See Tex. Penal Code § 32.21(d). Appellant pleade d g uilty and was place d on defe rre d adjudication probation for three y ear s, along with imposit io n o f a fine and restitution. Appellant’s probation was twice extended befor e t h e State filed a motion to revoke defe rre d adjudication and to proce ed to adjudicate g uilt. This case was hear d i n co n j u n cti on with a new char g e ag ainst appellant for state jail felony

theft. Appe llant entere d a g uilty plea to the ne w theft char g e and pleade d true to s i x o f t h e seven alleg ations in the motion to adjudicate g uilt. After a bench t ri al , t h e t ri al court sentenc ed appellant to 545 day s in the State J ail Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice.Appellant’s court-a ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea ls are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Cali

f o r n i a b y prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Pe nson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 86–87 (1988).

Appellant’s counsel has repr esente d to the Court tha t he has provided c opies of the motion and brief to the appellant; advised appellant of her rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionar y revie w following dismiss al of this a ppeal as frivolous; and p ro v i d ed ap pellant with a form motion for pro se acc ess to the appellate rec ord along with t h e mailing addre ss of this Court. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

see also Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. We have not rec eived a pro se brief from the a

ppellant. W e h av e conducte d an independe nt revie w of the rec ord, including appellate

c o u n s e l’ s b r ie f

, a n d f in d n o r e v e r s ib le e r

r o r . S e e A n d e r s , 3 8 6 U

. S. a

t 7 4 4 ; G a r n e r , 3 0 0 S. W. 3 d a

t 7 6 6 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the

rec ord pre sents no arg uably meritorious g rounds for r eview a nd the appe als are frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The judgme nts of conviction are aff irmed.

2__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2015 Do Not Publish

3
#### Michael ANDERSON, AKA Sorin Florin Boroghina, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73870

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 21, 2018

Michael Anderson, Pro Se

Manuel Palau, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*698MEMORANDUM **

Michael Anderson, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order, and denying a motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Anderson does not raise, and has therefore waived any challenge to, the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. *See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,*706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues. not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).

The BIA denied Anderson’s motion to remand, determining he had not demonstrated that a change in law had materially affected his removability such that he was no longer bound by his attorney’s concession that Anderson is removable because his conviction for unlawful delivery of marijuana under Oregon Revised Statutes § 475.860(2)(a) is an aggravated felony. However, the BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in *Sandoval v. Sessions,*866 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that the “delivery” element of delivery of a controlled substance under Oregon Revised Statutes § 475.992(1)(a) was not a categorical match to a drug trafficking aggravated felony because it punishes conduct outside of the scope of the federal equivalent. Accordingly, we remand for the BIA to consider Anderson’s motion to remand in light of that decision. *See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,*657 F.3d 820, 830-31 (9th Cir. 2011) (absent egregious circumstances, an attorney’s admission or concession is binding on an alien; egregious circumstances include circumstances where binding the alien to the concession would be unjust, such as if the propriety of the concession has been undercut by intervening law).

In light of this disposition, we need not address Anderson’s remaining contentions.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
April 1 8, 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140 Gentlemen,
AH Aero Services, LLC a certificate holder with the authority to operate under part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and section 91.147 is hereby seeking an exemption from certain specific requirements concerning drug and alcohol testing ( 14 CFR part 120). Specifi cally, our company conducts both part 135 operations and part 91 air tour operations and is therefore, otherwise , required to maintain separat e and distinct testing programs. The company seeks an exemption from this requirement so that the company can run both drug and alcohol programs under one program manager. As background, we are a small company of 12 total employees and s ix safety sensitive covered employees. Our drug a n d alcohol testing is administered by a third party subcontractor, Occupational H ealth Care International (OHCI) , out of S alt Lake City, Utah. The company has a relatively longstanding relationship with OHCI and believe that the program oversight they provide more than compensates for any concern that two separate drug and alcohol prog rams are necessary. Specifically, the company is seeking relief from the dual program requirement based on the relatively small number of covered personnel operating under part 135 and section 91.147 (currently two persons). Additionally, the added cost and administrative burden would outweigh any benefit, in our opinion.
We believe the granting of an exemption would not adversely affect safety either to the flying public or to the company’s employees. Further, we maintain that a comparable level of safety would exist by running our part 135 and part 91 operations under one drug and alcohol program for the reasons previously stated. This includes the centralization and oversight of records for our small population of covered employees.
To summarize we are a small fixed based operator that is providing cost effective aviation services to the flying public under parts 135 and 91 . We believe that the synergies of operating one drug and alcohol program as opposed to two would outweigh the added costs in ma npower and records processing without providing any commensurate increase in relative safety. We respectfully request that you grant this exemption. Sincerely,

Alan Robertson Controller