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

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,

J ustices 

# Order

April 6, 2018

156644

GLORIA KATO KARUNGI,Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellee,

v SC: 15 6644 COA: 337152 Oakland CC Family Division: 2016-841198-DS RONALD LEE EJALU, Defendant/Counterplaintiff- Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because we are not persuaded that the questions pre sented should be reviewed by th is Court.

M C C ORMACK , J. ( concurring ).

I agree with the Court’s order denying leave to appeal, which properly leaves it to

the trial court to resolve sever al fact-intensive legal questio ns in the first instance. Among those questions are, as the Court of Appeals noted, wheth er the contracts between the parties and the in vitro fertilization clinic affect the pr oper disposition of this case. While I express no opinion on the correct resolution of that is sue, it is possible those contracts alone could prove outcome-determinative.

I write separately to note that the trial court should not avo id the question argued by the parties: whether frozen embryos are persons subject to a custody determination. The answer to that question could prove dispositive regarding w hether the contracts resolve this dispute. See Harvey v Harvey , 470 Mich 186, 194 (2004) (stating that “parties cannot stipulate to cir cumvent the authority of the ci rcuit court in determining the custody of children”). And i f the trial court concludes th at embryos are not subject to a custody determination, it is s till bound to make a determinat ion about the proper legal disposition of those embryos, if not under contract law or chil d custody law. UnderI, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

April 6, 2018

p0403 2

Clerk Const 1963, art 6, § 1, it has an obligation to exercise the ju dicial power to decide the dispute before it. See also MCL 600.605 (circuit courts “have original jurisdiction to

hear and determine all civil cl aims and remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by st atute to some other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this sta te”).

Should it become necessary to determine the disposition of the embryos outside contract law or child custody law, the trial court may wish to avail itself of the nonbinding authorities that have grappled with these difficult questions. See, e.g., Davis

v Davis , 842 SW2d 588, 604 (Tenn, 1992) (applying a balancing-of-inter ests test to determine the disposition of frozen embryos); Flannery, “Rethinking” Embryo Disposition Upon Divorce , 29 J Contemp Health L & Pol’y 233 (2013) (discussing three different approaches to the dis position of frozen embryos upon divorce).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6835

BRIAN KEITH NESBITT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TIM RILEY, Warden; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of the 

Department of Corrections; AMY SPENCER; DR. J. R. BEARDEN; 

DHO RICHARD TURNER; LAURA CALDWELL; LT. LAWSON, Safety; 

ADMIN CAPTAIN NANCE; GARY LANE; INVESTIGATOR LANE; KAREN 

MCMORRIS; CAP. JENNETTE GLEN; LT. JASON WEBBER; MAJOR JAMES 

PARRIS; CAPTAIN CATHY DUNCAN; DR. T. BYRNE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:14-cv-02788-RMG-PJG)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Keith Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., 

Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Keith Nesbitt appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

Nesbitt’s motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary 

restraining order in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Nesbitt v. Riley, No. 0:14-cv-02788-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. 

filed May 1, 2015 & entered May 4, 2015). We deny Nesbitt’s 

motions for appointment of counsel, a preliminary injunction, 

and a temporary restraining order. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
September 29, 2016

Mr. Wade Bowen

Bowen’s Farm

7026 Dry Bread Road

Lawrenceville, VA 23868

Re: FAA–2016–4789

Dear Mr. Bowen:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst
***EXHIBIT 32***

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 report on Form 10-QSB of Providence Resources, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Gilbert Burciaga, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | (1) | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: November 15, 2007  

 

/s/ Gilbert Burciaga

Gilbert Burciaga 

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

44
Allen B. MINIX, et al. v. CITY OF RAYNE, et al.

No. 2018-C-0722

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ACADIA**

Writ denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

*1202In this case involving a fall on a sidewalk, for the thorough reasons assigned by Judge Amy's dissent, I would grant the writ application of City of Rayne thereby reinstating the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim.
Ben HUGHES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3551

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is transferred.
Isidro JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joshua J. DENNIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-487

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**SECTION 302CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Rhett S. Williams, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VIANET.WORKS, Inc. (“VIA”);

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                                       VIA’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for VIA and have:

 

a)                                      designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to VIA, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)                                     evaluated the effectiveness of VIA’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                                      disclosed in this report any change in VIA’s internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during VIA’s most recent fiscal quarter  that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, VIA’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.                                       VIA’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to VIA’s auditors andthe audit committee of VIA’s board of directors:

 

a)                                      allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect VIA’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)                                     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in VIA’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 12, 2004 |
|------------------------------|
| /s/ RHETT S. WILLIAMS        |   |
| Rhett S. Williams            |
| Chief Executive Officer      |

 

----
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Patricia Galindo, * From the 70th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. A-33,327.

Vs. No. 11-16-00127-CR * May 27, 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Patricia Galindo’s motion to dismiss her appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Jeremy CARTER, Appellant, v. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1194

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Dinosaurs and Fossils

Filters

              - science_faqs(7)
              - products_publications(9)
              - multimedia_audio(6)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(5)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Interviews        July 5, 2011        Earth History of the National Capital Region – Volcanoes, Earthquakes & Dinosaurs... Oh My!
Chyvas Ariel PEOPLES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 579 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2014 

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

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. 

Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 579 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 501 East 

3 Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and 

4 designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Court5 house’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States 

11 Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(12)
              - documents_file(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149220(1)

## By Location

              - (-)alabama(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - texas(1)

## By Year

Supporting material        July 13, 2023        Citizen Science Call-to-Action Flyer
Earnest JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Sharona MCCOY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-591

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5585 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that overthe-road bus drivers are covered under the maximum hours requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2016 

Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. 

CLARKE of New York, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 

and Mr. CARTWRIGHT) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

that over-the-road bus drivers are covered under the 

maximum hours requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Driver Fatigue Preven5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

7 OF 1938. 

8 Section 13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

9 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1)) is amended by inserting beVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:11 Jun 28, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5585.IH H5585

emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5585 IH

1 fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘, except a driver of an 

2 ‘over-the-road bus’ as defined in section 3038(a)(3) of the 

3 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public 

4 Law 105–178; 49 U.S.C. 5310 note)’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1





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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Qingjie Zhao, the
Chief Executive Officer of WONDER AUTO TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 4th day of March, 2010.





/s/ Qingjie ZhaoQingjie
      ZhaoChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





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





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
Jack CORDEIRO and Alda Cordeiro; Appellants, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a The Bank of New York as trustee FOR the CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-27 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-27; SunTrust Bank; Belle Harbor Owner's Association, Inc. ; Tenant #1 n/k/a Cheryl White, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2256

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Edward WEBB, DOC #109823, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2020116EN.01001601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/16 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

Case M.9770 – Sun Life Financial/InfraRed Partners

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 116/07)

1.

On 30 March 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2020116EN.01001601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sun Life Financial Inc. (‘Sun Life’, Canada), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | InfraRed Partners LLP (‘InfraRed’, UK) |

Sun Life acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole InfraRed.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Sun Life: financial services organisation providing insurance, wealth and asset management solutions to individual and corporate clients, primarily in Canada and the US, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | InfraRed: investment management firm. It currently manages USD 12 billion of equity capital in multiple private and listed funds, primarily for institutional investors across the globe. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2020116EN.01001601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9770 – Sun Life Financial/InfraRed Partners

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2020116EN.01001601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2020116EN.01001601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
BIG LEAGUE VENTURES, LLC, Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Appellee.

No. 4D18-0733

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 16, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.