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.

 October 28, 2013

t1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147501

CRYSTAL McCASKILL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

LEWIS SMITH, Ph.D., P.C.,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v SC: 147501

COA: 310068

Wayne CC: 12-000760-NF

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2013 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
----

----

| 1. | 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 Company at the end of the periods covered by the Quarterly      Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |                                                                                |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:      August 18, 2008 |   |                                                                                |
|                       | By:    | /s/      Robert      McIntosh          |
|                       |   | Robert      McIntosh                                                                |
|                       |   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                        |

----
Opinion filed October 24 , 201 3



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 3

- 00 24 3

- C R

__________

JOHN LEE NAIL

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 9 0 th District Court

Stephens County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F33653

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

John Lee Nail , Appellant, has filed in th is court a motion to dismiss h is

appeal . In the motion, Appellant states that he “no longer desires to appeal this

C ause . . . and requests that the appeal be voluntarily dismissed .” Pu rsuant to

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.2 , the motion is signed by both Appellant and h is counsel.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

October 24 , 2013 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.
Christopher WESTMORELAND, et al., Appellants, v. Robert A. BOSWORTH, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 106243

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: September 4, 2018

Christopher Westmoreland, 129 Timka Drive, Ballwin, Missouri 63011, Pro Se.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Bruce D. Lemoine, Christopher R. Larose, Andrew S. Zimmerman, 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800, Clayton, Missouri 63105, David M. Dare, 439 S. Kirkwood Road, Suite 204, St. Louis, Missouri 63122, Jamie Lea Thompson, Paul L. Brusati, 7701 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 400, Clayton, Missouri 63105, Dennis L. Callahan, 2458 Old Dorsett Road, Suite 230, Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*125Christopher Westmoreland, et al. appeal the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of their petition alleging that in a prior collections action, Respondents engaged in self-dealing, misappropriated Appellants' funds, or were negligent.

We find that no error of law appears, and that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Therefore, we affirm and dispose of this case by written order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 21.1
                     FIRST CASH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
                                 SUBSIDIARIES

                                                               Percentage
                                          Country/State of        Owned
              Subsidiary Name              Incorporation      by Registrant
              ---------------              -------------      -------------
       American Loan and Jewelry, Inc.         Texas               100%
       WR Financial, Inc.                      Texas               100%
       Famous Pawn, Inc.                       Maryland            100%
       JB Pawn, Inc.                           Texas               100%
       Cash & Go, Inc.                         California          100%
       Capital Pawnbrokers, Inc.               Maryland            100%
       Silver Hill Pawn, Inc.                  Maryland            100%
       Elegant Floors, Inc.                    Maryland            100%
       One Iron Ventures, Inc.                 Illinois            100%
       First Cash, S.A. de C.V.                Mexico              100%
       American Loan Employee Services,
         S.A. de C.V.                          Mexico              100%
       First Cash, Ltd.                        Texas               100%
       First Cash Corp                         Delaware            100%
       First Cash Management, LLC              Delaware            100%
       First Cash, Inc.                        Nevada              100%
       Cash & Go, Ltd.                         Texas               49.5%
       Cash & Go Management, LLC               Texas                50%
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Hewitt
Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 1) the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                       |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 1, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Russell P. Fradin  
|                       |  |     |  | Russell P. Fradin      
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hewitt Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
            WHEREAS, DEAN WITTER DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND
II L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the ?Partnership?), DEMETER
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the ?General
Partner?), and VK CAPITAL, INC., (formerly known as Dean Witter Futures &
Currency Management Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the ?Trading Advisor?),
have agreed to amend the Management Agreement, dated as of the 28th day of
October, 1988 (the ?Management Agreement?), among the Partnership, the
General Partner, and the Trading Advisor, to reduce the monthly management fee
payable to the Trading Advisor and to increase the annual
 incentive fee payable to the Trading Advisor.
            WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Management
Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent
necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below.
            NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the
Management Agreement as follows:
            1.	The monthly management fee equal to 1/4 of 1% of the
?Adjusted Net Assets? of the Partnership in Section 6(a)(i) of the Management
Agreement is hereby changed to a monthly management fee equal to 1/6 of 1% of
the ?Adjusted Net Assets? of the Partnership.
            2.	The annual incentive fee equal to 15% of the ?Trading
Profits? in Section 6(a)(ii) of the Management Agreement
    is hereby changed to an  annual incentive fee equal to 20% of
 the "Trading Profits".
            3.	The foregoing amendments shall take effect as of the 1st
day of February, 2006.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management
Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the 31st
day of January, 2006.
DEAN WITTER DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND
II L.P.
By:  Demeter Management Corporation,
	General Partner
By:/s/  Jeffrey A. Rothman
Name:	Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President
DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
By:/s/  Jeffrey A. Rothman
Name:	Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President
VK CAPITAL, INC.
By:/s/  Maureen Kaelin
Name:	Maureen Kaelin
Title:	President
Leo R. SHIVERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106102

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: August 21, 2018

Katie Curry, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Atty. Gen., Nathan J. Aquino, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Leo Shivers appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(5).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20557 Summary Calendar

__________________ EDWARD TYLER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 94-CV-2700 - - - - - - - - - - February 13, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edward Tyler, Jr., appeals from the affirmance of the Commissioner's decision denying disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Tyler argues that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence.No. 95-20557 -2- AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99
                           ==========

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crafty Admiral Enterprises, Ltd.
(Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Lawrence Siccia, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Office of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the bet of my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the 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 Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of Registrant.

Dated:  April 29, 2003       /s/ Lawrence Siccia
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer and
                              Chief Financial Officer of
                              Crafty Admiral Enterprises, Ltd.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 333-136105 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 30, 2010 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of California Coastal Communities, Inc. and subsidiaries (Debtor-in-Possession) (the "Company") (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on
those consolidated financial statements and includes explanatory paragraphs regarding the Company's bankruptcy proceedings and expressing substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of California Coastal Communities, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Costa
Mesa, California
March 30, 2010

---



QuickLinks
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2475

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Timothy J. Barnhill, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 30, 2003

Filed: January 12, 2004

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Timothy J. Barnhill pleaded guilty to

being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court1

 sentenced Barnhill to 72

months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. The court also imposed, as

special conditions of supervised release, the requirements that Barnhill (1) participate

in substance-abuse, mental-health, and “breath-alcohol ignition interlock device”

programs, (2) submit to searches by the probation office upon reasonable suspicion
-2-

of Barnhill’s violation of his release conditions, and (3) not consume or possess

alcoholic beverages. On appeal, Barnhill’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

supervised-release conditions imposed by the district court are not reasonably related

to Barnhill’s offense; the government breached its duty under the plea agreement by

not recommending an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the court erred by not

granting the reduction; and Barnhill was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Barnhill has moved separately for appointment of counsel.

In the plea agreement, Barnhill waived his right to appeal his sentence, with

limited exceptions not applicable here. After carefully reviewing the record, we

conclude that the government did not breach the plea agreement; that all of Barnhill’s

arguments, except his ineffective-assistance claim, fall within the scope of the waiver;

that Barnhill entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily; and that no

miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v.

Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-93 & n.7 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 501

(2003); United States v. Blue Coat, 340 F.3d 539, 542 (8th Cir. 2003); United States

v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 873 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 942 (1998).

Further, Barnhill’s ineffective-assistance claim is not properly raised in this direct

criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 535 U.S. 948 (2002).

We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues not waived by the plea

agreement. Accordingly, we enforce Barnhill’s appeal waiver, dismiss this appeal,

and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We also deny Barnhill’s motion for counsel.

______________________________
From: Chuck French [French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:51 PM

To: Marinshaw, Richard

Cc: Hancy, Cindy Wang; Phil Mulrine

Subject: Review of impacted plants

I talked with the owner of Dover Industrial in Chicago. He said they have 7 tanks that are routed to 2 

emissions stacks. They use only WAFS to control emissions. When they did the emissions performance 

test some years ago they purposely did maximum load of all tanks at "full blast". Now, and for awhile, 

they only use 2-3 tanks. He expects emissions would be significantly lower now compared to the time of 

testing. They use a WAF by Hunter Chemical and he says it works great. 

By the way, Dover is truely a small business (3 employees total, including the owner).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alfred GRAVES, Appellant.

No. ED 105872

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: September 18, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Kristina Starke Olson, District Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Garrick F. Aplin, Asst. Atty. Gen., 221 West High Street, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Graves appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
Honorable Vera V. Fogg 

County Attorney 

Xardeman County 

Quanah, Texas 

Dear Miss Fogg: .Opinion No. O-4715 

Fie: County Superintendent is not 

required to pay poll tax in order 

to legally serve as such officer. 

., 

Your request for opinion upon the following stated question:. ':: 

I, .~ 

. . . . ~. 

%an a person be elected to the office of County School 

Su*rintendent, and legally serve, when he has .not paid 

his poll tax, and thus is not a qualified voter of the 

county in which he is elected? 

I! 11 

. . . . 

has been received and carefully considered by this department. 

Article 2688, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, sets forth the 

qualifications of the County School Cuperintendent; this Article does 

not require that he pay a poll tax or be a qualified voter. Article 

293, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, sets out the ineligibility 

of certain persons to serve as public of'ficials and prescribes residential 

requirements of'such officials; this Article does not make persons vho 

have not paid theif-.poll taxes or who are not qualified voters ineligible 

to hold public office. 

The nature and purpose of a poll tax is that of .a necessary pereqtiisite'to 

the right of certain designated classes to VCM- Unless otherwi.se provided, 

the office of a poll tax is not that of a necessary prerequisite to 

holding office. 

Accordingly, ' it is our opinion, and you a?e so arvised, that a person 

need not to have paid a poll tax in order to be elected and to qualify 

for the office of County Superintendent. 
Honorable Vera V. Fcgg, Page ,#2 (O-4716) 

Very truly yours, 

ATTORI\%Y GENERAL OF TMAS 

s/Wm. J. Farming 

APPROVED July 24, 1942 

s/ GERALD C. MANN 

ATTORNEY (XNFZAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION CI~MITTJ~E 

BY B. W. B. 

CHAIRMAN 

BY 

Wm. J. Fanning 

Assistant
Cedric ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105614

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: August 21, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Kristina Starke Olson, District Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Anderson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Filed 9/8/16 P. v. Barry CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v

.

JOSEPH MI CHAEL BARRY

,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B2 71159
(Super. Ct. No. 2015031103 )

( Ventura County )

Joseph Michael Barry was charged with resisting an officer (Pen. Code,

§ 69 )

, 1 misdemeanor criminal threats (§ 422 ), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242). P ursuant

to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to resisting an officer and criminal threats

. The trial

court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on formal probation for three

years with terms and conditions, including 240 days in jail wi th 177 days of presentence

custody credit

. The court dismissed the battery count. (§ 1385.)

Robert Ortiz left the NY Pizza Factory in Simi Valley and saw Barry

sticking his head into the window of Ortiz’s truck. Barry was speaking with Ortiz’s

girlfrie nd. When Ortiz asked Barry what was happening, Barry became very angry and

started to yell. Barry grabbed Ortiz by the throat and pushed him up against the driver’s

side fender. He threatened to go over to Ortiz’s house and kill him. When the police

1 All statutory references ar e to the Penal Code.2

ar rived, Barry refused to obey their commands, resisted their attempts to place his hands

behind his back, and struggled with the arresting officer. He continued to struggle and

disobey officer commands even after being tasered and handcuffed and having his feet

placed in a nylon hobble restraint

.

Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our

independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On June 21

,

2016 , we notified Barry that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he

wished us to consider. No response has been received.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Barry’s

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.

( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124; People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d at

p p . 441

- 442.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

YEGAN

, Acting P. J.

TANGEMAN , J.Jeffrey G. Bennett

, Judge

Superior Court County of Vent ura

______________________________

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner and Richard B. Lennon

,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.