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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 7, 2010

p0331 

# Order

April 7, 2010

138270 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138270 COA: 287574 Wayne CC: 02-001169 LEON DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of September 11, 2009, the prosec uting attorney was di rected to answer the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be revi ewed by this Court.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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. 95-50508

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

J.W. MYERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-90-CR-82-6)

__________________________________________________

June 3, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In his fourth appeal of the sentence he received after his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine,J.W. Myers arguesfor the first time that the district court

erred by presuming that his offense involved d-methamphetamine and computing his base offense

level accordingly. The only issue for consideration on an appeal following remand is whether the

court below reached its final decree in due pursuance of this court’s previous opinion and mandate.

Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States

v. Fiallo-Jacome, 874 F.2d 1479 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Connell, 6 F.3d 27, 30 (1st Cir.
2

1993). A claim is deemed to be abandoned when it is not raised in the original appeal. Eason v.

Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 (5th Cir. 1996). 

On Myers’s third appeal, this court remanded for determination of whether the government

could present evidence from which it might be reasonably inferred that the methamphetamine

attributed to Myers had a sufficient percentage of purity so as to contain at least 100 grams of pure

methamphetamine. The district court correctly found that the issue of whether l- or dmethamphetamine was involved was outside of the parameters of this court’s limited remand.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1 and 54

[TD 9447]
RIN 1545-BG80


Automatic Contribution Arrangements; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 
9447) that were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, February 
24, 2009 (74 FR 8200) relating to automatic contribution arrangements. 
These regulations affect administrators of, employers maintaining, 
participants in, and beneficiaries of section 401(k) plans and other 
eligible plans that include an automatic contribution arrangement.

DATES: This correction is effective on March 19, 2009, and is 
applicable on February 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    R. Lisa Mojiri-Azad, Dana Barry, or William D. Gibbs at (202) 622-
3860 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this document are 
under sections 401, 402, 411, 414, and 4979 of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, final regulations (TD 9447) contains an error that 
may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9447), 
which was the subject of FR Doc. E9-3716, is corrected as follows:
    On page 8206, column 1, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``D. Permissible Withdrawal'', fourth paragraph of the column, 
last line of the paragraph, the language ``section 3405(a).'' is 
corrected to read ``section 3405(b).''.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E9-5952 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Darnell L. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105447

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: January 30, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018

Amy E. Lowe, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Nathan J. Aquino, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Darnell Wilson ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The State charged Movant in two separate cases. In one case, the State charged Movant with one count of the Class D felony of stealing, third offense. In the second case, the State charged Movant with the class C felony of assault on a law enforcement officer in the second degree, the Class D felony of stealing, third offense, and the Class D felony of resisting arrest by fleeing. Movant agreed to plead guilty to all counts in both cases. The court sentenced Movant to concurrent sentences of five years for assault of a law enforcement officer in the second degree, two years for stealing, third offense, and two years for resisting arrest. The motion court denied an evidentiary hearing for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of CFO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the issuer.*

 

 
| * *                                | *By:*                                                                          | */s/ John F. Coger* |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                    |                                                                           |                |
|                                    |                                                                           |
|                                    | Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer |
|                                    |                                                                           |
|                                    |                                                                           |
| Date:  November 16, 2009 |                                                                           |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ideal Accents, Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Ayaz M. Somani, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ideal Accents, Inc., and will be retained by Ideal Accents, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







/s/  Ayaz M. Somani

Ayaz M. Somani, Chief Financial Officer



Date:  September 24, 2004
Exhibit
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the quarterly report of Nuvim, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”),
      I, Michael Vesey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 best of my knowledge:





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.








Date:
      November 14, 2005







/s/
                Michael VeseyMichael
                Vesey
              Chief
                Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

____________________
No. 99-1429 DWIGHT W. MATTIS, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., Respondents, Appellees.

____________________ ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 8, 2000, is amended as follows: 1) On page 9 n.9, line 4, delete: "It is worth noting" and replace it with: "It is arguable" 2) On page 9 n.9, at the end of the footnote, add: "We do not decide the question." 3) On page 21, line 17, delete: ", for two reasons" 4) On page 21, line 18, between "First," and "Mattis" insert:"there is a strong argument that"

5) On page 22, line 17, at the end, add: "But we need not ultimately decide the waiver question because the reasons expressed below resolve the matter against Mattis." 6) On page 22, line 18, delete: "In addition," and change "there" to "There"
#### Jacob Beaird et al., Executors, etc., of J. B. Gharst, Deceased, v. John Wolf, Executor, etc., of E. J. French, Deceased.

*Administration.—Payment—Mistake—Cause of Action—When Accrued —Former Adjudication.*

*1.*Where an executor has by mistake paid a claimant more than he is entitled to receive, without an order of court, no action in behalf of the estate can be maintained to recover the excess so paid.

2. Where one who, as the executor of an estate, has paid a claimant a dividend in full with his own mjans, seeks to recover the amount from the estate of such claimant, the record must show at what time he paid such dividend.

[Opinion filed June 7, 1887.]

*487In error to the Circuit Court of Bichland Countyj the Hon. William C. Jones, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Wilson & Hutchinson, for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Gibson & Johnson, for defendant in error.

Green, J.

The views of this court upon the main questions presented by counsel will be found fully expressed in the opinion filed in the cases of Foskett v. Wolf, 19 Ill. App. 33, and Beaird v. Wolf, 19 Ill. App. 36, and it is only necessary to say here, the evidence in this record shows that in July, 1886, the estate of French (of whose will Wolf xvas executor) xvas settled, and at that time the full dividend alloxved on seventh-class claims had been paid, but the record does not shoxv at what time. *Wolf \ with his own*means, paid such dividend in full, and to entitle him to recover his claim against the estate of Gliarst, the evidence must show a cause of action accrued at the time. Tills is not shown. Counsel for Wolf, in their brief, suggest great hardships will be suffered by him if this claim be not alloxved, but he could have avoided loss by observing and obeying the plain provisions of the statute prescribing his duties as executor, and if loss is suffered by him it results from his disregard of those provisions. The judgment of the court below is reversed.

*It ever seel.*
Exhibit 10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 SCHEDULE OF BASE SALARIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  

				
	 Name
	  	Base Salary
		
	 Alan I. Kirshner
	  	$	650,000
	 Steven A. Markel
	  	 	600,000
	 Anthony F. Markel
	  	 	150,000
	 Thomas S. Gayner
	  	 	525,000
	 Richard R. Whitt, III
	  	 	475,000
	 Gerard Albanese, Jr.
	  	 	400,000
	 Britton L. Glisson
	  	 	330,521
	 F. Michael Crowley
	  	 	535,000
	 John K. Latham
	  	 	410,000
##### 



Exhibit
31.2
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Fund, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
the Report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Funds disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the period covered by the Report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in the Report any change in the Funds internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Funds most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Funds internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Funds
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Funds internal control over financial reporting.
 By: /s/ Konrad KoenigswieserKonrad KoenigswieserSecretary and Chief Financial OfficerMay 11, 2006
 E-3
Order entered October 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00640-CR

CRAIG EVERETT HALTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-71883-U

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 24
- 05 28 LT Case No. 200 8- CF

- 13662

_____________________________ A NTHONY L EE R UISE , Appella nt,
v. S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee
.

_____________________________ 3.850 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Tatiana Salv ador, Judge. Anthony Lee R uise, Cross City, pro se. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, and Michael McDer mott, Assistant Attor ney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. April 9, 2024
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a). E DWARDS , C.J., and M AKAR and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
April 30, 2000



Mrs. Sue Dignan
Northwest Bank Minnesota, NA
Corporate Trust Services
Sixth & Marquette, Mail Station 0070
Minneapolis, MN 55479-0070

Dear Mrs. Dignan:

Reference is made to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement"), related to PeopleFirst.com Auto Receivables Owner Trust
1999-1, dated as of November 1, 1999, between PeopleFirst Finance, LLC, a
California limited liability company (as "Seller and Servicer"),
PeopleFirst.com Auto Receivables Owner Trust 1999-1 (as "Issuer"), PF
Funding II, LLC (as "Transferor"), Prudential Securities Secured Financing
Corporation (as "Depositor") and Norwest Bank Minnesota, NA (as "Indenture
Trustee", "Backup Servicer" and "SCustodian"). Capitalized terms used
herein without definition shall have the respective meanings ascribed
thereto in the Agreement.

The undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of PeopleFirst Finance, LLC,
hereby certifies, that for the twelve months ending December 31, 1999:

         The Servicer performed all duties and obligations required
pursuant to the Agreement.

PEOPLE FIRST FINANCE, LLC

W.R. Ellspermann
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Eden Clark; Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global Club, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-l4(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:

|  

(1)     

the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

 

 

 

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: November 15, 2010                                                                        

By:

*/s/ Eden Clark*

 

 

Eden Clark

 

 

Chief Executive Officer and

 

 

Chief Financial Officer

                 
              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald C. ALLISON, Jr., Appellant.

WD 80672

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: September 25, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 23, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied December 18, 2018

Keith P. O'Connor, Kansas City, for appellant.

Gregory L. Barnes, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Appellant Donald Allison was convicted of first-degree statutory rape, in violation of § 566.032, RSMo ; first-degree statutory sodomy, in violation of § 566.062, RSMo ; attempted first-degree statutory rape, in violation of § 566.032, RSMo ; furnishing pornographic material to a minor, in violation § 573.040, RSMo ; and two counts of first-degree child molestation, in violation of § 566.067, RSMo. Allison appeals. He argues: (1) that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence diary entries and letters authored by his minor victim, because the statements were hearsay; (2) that the circuit court erred when it prohibited his counsel from asking venire members during *voir dire* whether they thought child molesters should be castrated or receive the death penalty; and (3) that he is entitled to a new trial because a paralegal who previously worked for the public defender's office assisted the prosecution during his trial. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).