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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134070 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan WALTER GIVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134070 COA: 276852 Branch CC: 06-011701-AH MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 25, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0830 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.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SHOLOMO DA VID

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 000 59

- C R

Appeal from the

41 ST District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20160D05398 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion requesting that we order the District Clerk

to provide Appellant with a free copy of the appellate record. The clerk’s record and reporter’s

record have been filed with the Eighth Court of Appeals at the expense of El Paso County and at

no cost to Appellant. The appellate record has been made available to Appellant’s attorney for use

in preparation of the Appellant’s brief which was filed on March 5, 2019. Appellant is not entitled

to his own copy o f the appellate record at no expense. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of March , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Michael Aaron ANDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2678

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF 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 amended Quarterly Report of Curon Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alistair F. McLaren, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer of the Company, 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) 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: October 22, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    ALISTAIR F. MCLAREN
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | Alistair F. McLaren                                  
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Victoria SZURANT, Appellant, v. Josef AARONSON, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-282

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jayeuian Jacoby REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1542

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 16, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - (-)products_data(1)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(47)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149250(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(8)
              - california(41)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - oklahoma(4)
              - oregon(5)
              - puerto rico(3)
              - tennessee(1)
              - (-)utah(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(5)

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Data Release        May 5, 2021        Ground motion Fourier and response spectra from Utah earthquakes, 2010--2020
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                                  PRESS RELEASE
                                November 18, 2005

                     AUTOCAM CORPORATION ANNOUNCES TIMING OF
                   2005 THIRD QUARTER EARNINGS CONFERENCE CALL


KENTWOOD, MI, November 18, 2005 -- The management of Autocam will hold a
conference call on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. (Eastern) to discuss
the Company's financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2005.


     What: Autocam Corporation 2005 Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call


     How: 800/289-0572 (U.S.) or 913/981-5543 (International), passcode 4575050.


     Contact: Mark R. Scott, Corporate Controller, 616/698-0707.


If you are unable to participate, the call will be recorded and available.
Contact Barbara Olson at 616/541-8585 for more information.


Autocam Corporation, a portfolio company of Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and
Transportation Resource Partners, is a leading independent manufacturer of
extremely close tolerance precision-machined, metal alloy components,
sub-assemblies and assemblies, primarily for performance and safety critical
automotive applications and medical devices. The Company is headquartered in
Kentwood, Michigan and, together with its subsidiaries, has plants in Michigan,
California, Massachusetts, France, Brazil, China and Poland.
Andre M. GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 3, 2018

Andre M. Griffin, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Lewis, Ray, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Kimberly SEEK, Appellant, v. BETH BAYER CONSIGNMENT, INC. and Domenic Martelli, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-4063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Romerio Latee WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Jr., Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3609

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of habeas corpus is granted.
**7/27/2015 5:40 PM Page 1 OF 2**

**C:\BACKUPJERRY 8-13-08\DATAWORD\FRY\CLIENTS\201419 SCRIPA, KEN\PDR\MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE PDR.DOC** 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

KEN SCRIPA §

VS. § NO. 01-14-00477- CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

THE STATE OF TEXAS §



## MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S

PETITION FOR D ISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

I

.

COMES NOW, K EN SCRIPA , A ppellant in the above entitled and numbered cause, under

the authority of Tex. R. App. P. Rule 10.5(b) (3) and would respectfully request this Court grant an

ex tension of time to file Appellant’s P eti tion for D iscre ti o nary Review and would show the

following:

I.

Appellant ’s A ppeal was affirmed on July 2, 2015 by The First Court of A ppeals . Appellant’s

P eti tion for D iscre ti o nary Review must be filed by August 3, 2015.

II.

This is Appellant’s first Motion for Extension of T ime to file his P eti tion for D iscre ti onary

Review

. PD-0971-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/27/2015 5:51:11 PM

Accepted 7/29/2015 10:47:09 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK**7/27/2015 5:40 PM**  **Page 2**  **OF 2** 

**C: \**  **BACKUPJERRY 8** 

**- 13** 

**- 08**  **\ DATAWORD**  **\ FRY**  **\ CLIENTS**  **\ 201419 SCRIPA, KEN**  **\ PDR**  **\ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE PDR.DOC**  I II.

Appellant’s attorney, Gerald Fry, i s han dling many other clients and their court cases and

doesn’t have sufficient time to write this Petition for Discretionary Review by August 3, 2015.

I V

.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, undersigned counsel prays for this court to

extend the time for filing Appellant’s P eti tion for D iscre ti o nary Review until S eptember 3, 2015

which is thirty days from the current deadline.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s / Gerald Fry

GERALD FRY

Texas Bar Number 07493800

801 Congress, Suite 350

Houston, TX 77002

(713) 222

- 0860; (713) 224

- 3 111 Fa x

jerryfry@hal

- pc.org



## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Appellant’s MOTION was served on Mr.

Alan Curry, Chief of the Appellate Division, Harris County Dis trict Attorney’s Office, 1201

Franklin, S uite 600, Houston, Tex as 77002

.

/ s / Gerald Fry

Gerald Fry
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 102962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29856]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 919 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-653, K2025-652.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-29856 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Daniel R. ROBIDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1834

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 9, 2018 Rehearing Denied November 26, 2018

Daniel R. Robida, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

M. LINDERMAN, Head of Pastoral

Services; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16315

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01571-PGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants

violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and various other

FILED

FEB 3 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2008)

(summary judgment). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson’s First

Amendment claim because Patterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether defendants Lee and Becker violated his First Amendment rights

by suspending his kosher meal privileges after Patterson violated the terms of his

meal plan by sharing or trading food with other inmates. See O’Lone v. Estate of

Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350-52 (1987) (restraint on inmate’s ability to exercise his

religion does not violate the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to a

legitimate penological interest).

The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s claims against the

remaining defendants because Patterson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a

plausible claim for relief under any viable legal theory. See Starr v. Baca, 652

F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining supervisory liability under § 1983);

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings

2 13-16315
are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual allegations

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-16315
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDWARD CARTAGENA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 652 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
C.D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-986

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

C.D., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LUCK, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.16




Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd.





March 31, 2011




TO:           Seabridge Gold Inc.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Seabridge Gold Inc. (the “Company”), to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010, which is being filed as an exhibit to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.  Reference is also made to the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (Registration No. 333-164530, the “F-10”) of the Company which incorporates by reference the information contained in the AIF and the 40-F.





I, Graham Parkinson, P.Geo., on behalf of myself and Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report and to the references, as applicable, to my name and Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd.’s name in connection with the following report in the AIF, the 40-F and the F-10: Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) Preliminary Feasibility Study 2010 dated March 31, 2010.




Yours truly,/s/ Graham ParkinsonGraham Parkinson, P.Geo.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELVYN K. FOSTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LEROY BACA, Sheriff; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 56550

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 04701

- CAS

- AJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Melvyn K. Foster appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state

law claims arising during his pretrial detention . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56550

In his opening brief, Foster fails to address how the district court erred by

dismissing his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and declining

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. As a result, Foste r

has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d

1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its

opening brief are deemed waived.”).

AFFIRMED.
Bernard WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed October 26, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Based upon Appellee's confession of error, with which we agree, we remand this *535cause with instructions for the trial court to render a written order on the issue of competency. *See**Davis v. State*, 239 So.3d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
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 World Wide Web, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike Zuliani, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.





/s/ Mike Zuliani

Mike Zuliani

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2004
5. Termination of Service. Subject to the authority of the Committee under Section12.4 of the Plan, if the Participant’s service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Companyterminates, for any reason, then all Restricted Shares unvested at the time of termination will beterminated and forfeited.     6. Change in Control. If a Change in Control occurs, then all unvested RestrictedShares shall immediately fully vest and be non-forfeitable immediately prior to the Change inControl.     7. Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Compete or Non-Solicitation. Notwithstandinganything in this Notice or the Plan to the contrary, in the event that the Participant materiallybreaches the terms of any confidentiality, non-compete or non-solicitation agreement entered intowith the Company or any Subsidiary, whether such breach occurs before or after termination of theParticipant’s service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company, the Committee in itssole discretion may require the Participant to surrender Restricted Shares, vested or unvested, andto disgorge any profits made or realized, in connection with the Restricted Shares.     8. Participant. Whenever the word “Participant” is used in any provision of thisNotice under circumstances where the provision should logically be construed to apply to theexecutors, the administrators, legal representatives or the person or persons to whom theRestricted Shares may be transferred by will or by the laws of descent and distribution, the word“Participant” shall be deemed to include such person or persons.     9. Binding Effect. This Notice shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,administrators, successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto.Dated:      AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMSHOLDINGS, INC.