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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 4, 2017

s0327

Order 

Clerk

April 4, 2017

154023

MICHAEL SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154023

COA: 330543

Livingston CC: 14-006162-DO

DENISE SULLIVAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00437

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 352

- 323156

- 21

Before Womack, Kerr, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### M C 

### M AHAN 

### ’ S 

### F LOORING



### , I NC



### . , Appellant

V



### .

S HELLY 

### M ORRISON AND 

### S TEVE 

### H OWE 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellant ’ s “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss.” We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : April 28, 2022
Gilberto ISAAC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Suzette LAGE, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1599

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 20, 2018, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
Clarence BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1833

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 11, 2018

Clarence Brown, Orlando, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen G. Kasnet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

Dated: July 31, 2006
# C_2020433EN.01003101.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2020 — BC v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-467/20)

(2020/C 433/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BC

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Are Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1), read together with Article 3(5) of that regulation, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights that are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located outside the territory of a Member State (third country) and travelling to an airport located in a Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay in reaching his or her destination of 3 hours or more, the cause of that delay arising in the first flight, operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a non-Member State, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier with which the booking of the entire journey was made and that only performed the second leg of that journey?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Sean BOGLE, Esquire, as Personal Representative, Appellant, v. William Isaac NICHOLS, Beech Outdoor Company d/b/a Beech Outdoor Advertising Inc., Sims Crane & Equipment Co., Sign Service and Installations, Inc., et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2918

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Joseph CANNISTRA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Kevin RODRIGUEZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0531

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 10.31

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

$65,000                                                       November 27, 2003
                                                              New York, New York



         WHEREAS, CGT Management Ltd., a company organized and existing under
the laws of Bermuda (the "Payee"), made a loan to Trend Mining Company
("Payor"), a Delaware corporation with its principal business address at 4881
East Shoreline Drive, Post Falls, Idaho 83854, in the principal amount of
$65,000 plus interest at a rate of 10% per annum, which loan was evidenced by
that certain Promissory Note (the "Note") dated August 29, 2003;

         WHEREAS, principal and interest on the Note are due and payable as of
even date herewith; and

         WHEREAS, Payor and Payee wish to extend the maturity date of the Note
for an additional ninety days;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Payor and the Payee agree as
follows:

         1. Amendment to Term. The Maturity Date of the Note shall be February
25, 2004.

         2. Note. Other than as set forth in paragraph 1, all of the terms and
conditions of, and the Payor's obligations under, the Note shall remain in full
force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Payor and Payee have caused this Amendment to
be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date first written
above.

                                                 TREND MINING COMPANY



/s/ Lindsay                                      By:/s/ John Ryan
Witness                                          Name:  John Ryan
                                                 Title:  Chief Financial Officer



                                                 CGT MANAGEMENT LTD.



_________________________                        By:________________________
Witness                                          Name:  Roy Klassen
                                                 Title:  Director
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELVIN HARRIS, also known as Melvin Robinson; LARRY WASHINGTON, also known as “Pretty Larry,” Defendants-Appellants. (consolidated with)

No. 96-60734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LARRY WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. (consolidated with)

No. 96-60736* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELVIN HARRIS, also known as Melvin Robinson, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:95-CR-133) September 8, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
In these consolidated cases Melvin H a rris and Larry Washington appeal their convictions after jury trial of co n spiracy to distribute cocaine base and of the substantive offense. They urge several bases for their appeals, including a claim of insufficient evidence. Our review of the pertinent parts of the record in light of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel reflects neither reversible error nor other basis for reversal of the convictions of either defendant-appellant. Accordingly the3

convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
# C_2021009EN.01000301.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/3

---

Appeal brought on 7 April 2020 by Jean Whitehead and David Evans against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2020 in Case T-541/19, Shindler and Others v Council

(Case C-158/20 P)

(2021/C 9/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Jean Whitehead, David Evans (represented by: J. Fouchet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Harry Shindler, Douglas Edward Watson, David Maxwell Anstead, Ross Adrian Bailey

By order of 1 October 2020 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

---
# C_2022024EN.01000902.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/9

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois — France) — YE and Others v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-686/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 3(3) - Scope - Passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public - Young child travelling free of charge - Article 2(f) - Definition of ‘ticket’)

(2022/C 24/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Proximité d’Aulnay-sous-Bois

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: YE, LP, AN, legally represented by her parents YE and LP, OL, legally represented by her parents YE and LP, VX, legally represented by his parents YE and LP, CE, legally represented by her parents YE and LP

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of direct or indirect availability to the public, contained in that provision, does not refer to passengers travelling free of charge. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of direct or indirect availability to the public, contained in that provision, does not refer to passengers travelling free of charge.

| 2. | The second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who travels free of charge on account of his or her young age, but who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations booked by his or her parents, is excluded from the scope of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who travels free of charge on account of his or her young age, but who does not have an allocated seat or a boarding pass and whose name does not appear on the reservations booked by his or her parents, is excluded from the scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 18 December 2020

---
# C_2021471EN.01001001.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Phantasialand v Finanzamt Brühl

(Case C-406/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 7 - Admission fee for amusement parks and fairs - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Services provided by static and mobile fairground entertainers - Comparability - Context - Point of view of the average consumer - Expert opinion)

(2021/C 471/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Phantasialand

Defendant: Finanzamt Brühl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex III to that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, first, services provided by mobile fairground entertainers and, second, those provided by static fairground entertainers in the form of amusement parks are subject to different rates of value added tax, one reduced and the other normal, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality is respected. European Union law does not preclude the referring court, where it encounters particular difficulties in verifying compliance with the principle of fiscal neutrality, from requesting, in accordance with the conditions laid down in national law, an expert opinion intended to inform its judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---
# C_2021138EN.01003102.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/31

---

Order of the General Court of 12 February 2021 — sprd.net v EUIPO — Shirtlabor (I love)

(Case T-19/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark I love - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Inapplicability of Article 16(1)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Admissibility of evidence - Article 97(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Impartiality - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 138/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sprd.net AG (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Shirtlabor GmbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Wallscheid, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2019 (Case R 5/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shirtlabor and sprd.net.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | sprd.net AG shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

sprd.net AG shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | Shirtlabor GmbH shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Shirtlabor GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4336 MARK HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-134) Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL William H. Ehlies, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Harold W. Gowdy, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Mark Hawkins appeals from a district court order denying his motion for an extension of time to appeal from the district court's underlying criminal judgment order entered against Hawkins on December 19, 1995. He claims that he asked his court-appointed attorney to appeal but that his attorney did not do so. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), Hawkins had ten days to appeal from the criminal judgment. The same rule authorized the district court to extend the appeal period by no more than 30 daysbased upon a showing of excusable neglect. The rule does not, however, permit a district court to note an appeal more than 40 days after the judgment. See United States v. Raynor , 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991).In this case, the 40-day period expired on January 29, 1996. Hawkins did not file his motion until April 4, 1997. Hence, the district court properly found that it lacked authority to grant the motion, and Hawkins concedes this in his appellate brief. This court does not reach claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal unless the record conclusively demonstrates counsel's ineffectiveness, United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991), which is not the case here. Therefore any such claim must be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. In view of our disposition, we deny Hawkins' motion for an extension of time to appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and allreports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period coveredby this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2009-A (the “ExchangeAct periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodicreports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution,servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-Dfor the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodicreports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performedby the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conductedin preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under theservicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have beenincluded as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in thisreport. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports havebeen disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

 

----

 

March 29, 2010

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Bierman                                      |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven C. Bierman                                               |
|   | Title: | President (senior officer  in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----