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.

 March 8, 2016

t0229

Order 

Clerk

March 8, 2016

148551 & (56)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148551

COA: 310550 

Branch CC: 10-109467-FC

JAMES CHARLES WILCOX,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of September 5, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the November 

26, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. 

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part 

the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Branch Circuit 

Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence 

under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge. On remand, the trial court shall 

follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court determines 

that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint on its 

discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial court determines 

that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional constraint 

on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In all other respects, leave to appeal is 

DENIED because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. The motion to hold application in abeyance is DENIED as moot. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                               Color Imaging, Inc.
                 Form 10-Q - Second Quarter Ended June 30, 2004

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

I, Jui-Kung, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

The Form 10-Q of Color  Imaging,  Inc.  for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

The  information  contained  in such report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Color  Imaging,
Inc. for the periods presented.

This   certification  is  being  furnished   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002  and,  except  to  the  extent  required  by  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act,  shall not be  deemed  to be filed as part of the  periodic
report described herein nor shall it be deemed filed by Color Imaging,  Inc. for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



                                        /S/ JUI-KUNG WANG
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Jui-Kung Wang
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Date: July 27, 2004

1794045
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                              UNITED STATES CODE)

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Tele Celular Sul Participacoes S.A., a Brazilian
sociedade anonima (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

      The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



<TABLE>
<S>                                    <C>
Dated: June 18, 2003                   By: /s/ Alvaro Pereira de Moraes Filho
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Name: Alvaro Pereira de Moraes Filho
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer


Dated: June 18, 2003                   By: /s/ Paulo Roberto Cruz Cozza
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Name: Paulo Roberto Cruz Cozza
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer
</TABLE>

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tele Celular Sul
Participacoes S.A. and will be retained by Tele Celular Sul Participacoes S.A.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38828

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHNATHAN RICHARD COVINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 374

Filed: February 27, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Franklin County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of three years , for lewd conduct with a minor child under 

sixteen, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Johnathan Richard Covington pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor child under 

sixteen. Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Covington to a term of ten years, 

with three years determinate. Covington appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Covington’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-7590) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and The
"ShellTransport and Trading Company, Public Limited Company of our report
dated March 13, 2002, relating to the Financial Statements of Royal Dutch
Petroleum Company which is included in this 2001 Annual Report on Form 20-F.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KPMG ACCOUNTANTS N.V., THE HAGUEKPMG Accountants N.V., The Hague
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|April 8, 2002                                                       

Exhibits      E3
#### State v. Hoffman

107,937

08/29/13

Denied.

Unpublished
# Table 4.2

# RSE 4.2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 64 (Thursday, April 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15918-15919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8529]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree in United States v. Amerada 
Hess Corp., et al., Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that a Consent Decree in United States v. 
Amerada Hess Corp., et al., Case No. 97-522 (W.D. La.), was lodged on 
March 14, 1997 with the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Louisiana. The proposed Consent Decree resolves certain 
claims of the United States on behalf of U.S. EPA against 28 settling 
parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 
Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601 et seq. relating to the PAB Oil 
Site near Abbeville, in

[[Page 15919]]

Vermilion Parish, Louisiana. Under the Decree, potentially responsible 
parties will, inter alia, pay the United States $637,500 towards past 
response costs, pay oversight costs up to $910,000, and agree not to 
seek any reimbursement from the United States for implementing remedial 
action pursuant to an administrative order.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree for 30 days following the publication of this 
Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to United States v. 
Amerada Hess Corp., et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-1405. The proposed 
Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, 300 Fannin St., Suite 
3201, Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-3068; the Region 6 Office of the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202-624-0892). A copy 
of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail 
from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy of the proposed Consent 
Decree, please enclose a check in the amount of $30.50 (25 cents per 
page for reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-8529 Filed 4-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9120]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 877]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status Pioneer Industrial 
Components, Inc., (Automotive Audio Products); Springboro, OH

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the FTZ Act), 
the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Greater Cincinnati Foreign Trade 
Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 46, for authority to 
establish special-purpose subzone status for the automotive audio 
products manufacturing facilities of Pioneer Industrial Components, 
Inc., in Springboro, Ohio, was filed by the Board on March 8, 1996, and 
notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ 
Docket 19-96, 61 FR 10726, 3-15-96); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the Pioneer Industrial Components, Inc., facilities in 
Springboro, Ohio (Subzone 46F), at the locations described in the 
application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, 
including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of March 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9120 Filed 4-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Year Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004(in millions)Earnings (loss) from continuing
operations before income taxes
    
    $
    561
    
    
    $
    880
    
    
    $
    1,042
    
    
    $
    868
    
    
    $
    698Fixed charges
    
    
    188
    
    
    
    141
    
    
    
    103
    
    
    
    127
    
    
    
    139Portion of fixed charges included in
income tax provision
    
    
    (4
    )
    
    
    (4
    )Capitalized interest adjustment
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    2
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    5
    
    
    
    5Share of distributed income in
affiliates
    
    
    20
    
    
    
    (11
    )
    
    
    (10
    )
    
    
    (15
    )
    
    
    (6
    )Earnings
    
    $
    764
    
    
    $
    1,008
    
    
    $
    1,138
    
    
    $
    985
    
    
    $
    836Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.1
    
    
    
    7.1
    
    
    
    11.0
    
    
    
    7.8
    
    
    
    6.0
 
 Note:
    
    Earnings consist of earnings before income taxes and fixed charges after eliminating share of
distributed income in affiliates and capitalized interest net of amortization of previously capitalized interest.
Fixed charges consist of interest expense, including capitalized interest, and amortization of debt
discount and expense on all indebtedness, plus the interest portion of rent expense. 140
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ 

 : 

DEMETRIUS NICKENS, : 

 : 

 v. : Civil Action No. 12-0888 (ESH) 

 : 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., : 

____________________________________: 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 On September 4, 2012, defendant District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. (DC’s Mot. to Dismiss, Sept. 4, 2012 [ECF No. 15].) By Order dated 

September 5, 2012, the Court advised plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the motion, and specifically warned 

plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the motion by October 5, 2012, the Court may treat the 

motion as conceded. To date, plaintiff neither has filed an opposition to the motion and nor has 

requested more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will grant the District of Columbia’s 

motion as conceded. 

 An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ 

 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE 

 United States District Judge 

Date: October 11, 2012
Exhibits
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Registered Independent PublicAccounting Firm**We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(No. 333-7590) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and The“Shell” Transport and Trading Company, Public LimitedCompany of our report dated March 29, 2005, relating to theFinancial Statements of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company which isincluded in this 2004 Annual Report on Form 20-F.
 
 
**/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.**--------------------------------------------------------------------**KPMG Accountants N.V.****The Hague – TheNetherlands**
 
 
March 29, 2005 Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies **E3**
#### L.E.H. v. Kansas Dept. of SRS

111,576

12/14/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00573-CR

Broderick Lamond Gamble

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 5

of Tarrant County (1289513)

January 15, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT  23(a)





                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



                 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.33-58311) pertaining to the United States
Lime & Minerals, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan,  as amended,  of our report dated
January 22, 1996,  with  respect to the  consolidated financial statements  of
United States Lime & Minerals, Inc. and subsidiaries  included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995.



                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Dallas, Texas
February 28, 1996
|  Definitions, Sources and Explanatory Notes |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Category:   | Natural Gas Production |
|-----------------------------|------------------------|
|                             |
|  Topic:      | Shale Gas Production   |
|                         |
|-------------------------|
|   Definitions |  |
|                         |
| Key Terms | Definition                                                  |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| Shale Gas | Natural gas produced from organic (black) shale formations. |
|                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| For definitions of related energy terms, refer to the   EIA Energy Glossary. |
|  	Sources |
|-----------------|
|  |
|--|
|  | Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas |
|                           |
|---------------------------|
|  	Explanatory Notes |
|                           |
|  | Shale Gas production data collected in conjunction with proved reserves data on Form EIA-23 are unofficial. Official Shale Gas production data from Form EIA-895 can be found in     Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production.  
  Related data and background information are published in the      U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves Annual Report. |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In the Matter of Z.E.K.B.L. AKA Z.L., A.S.L. AKA A.L., S.E.L., and 

S.Z.L., Children

Appellate case number: 01-11-01097-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-18283

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 13, 2012

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Massengale

Date: September 25, 2012
#### State v. Hill

106,026

07/19/13

Denied.

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS OF THE
LOUISIANA LAND AND EXPLORATION COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                             12,300
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      86,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                           400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  106,900
<PP&E>                                                          3,062,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  1,886,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  1,318,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             138,400
<BONDS>                                                           505,400
<COMMON>                                                            5,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        438,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    1,318,000
<SALES>                                                           683,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  692,800
<CGS>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     560,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   29,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 26,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    76,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       25,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                51,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       51,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        1.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        1.51