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

Lansing, Michigan 

November 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134840 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 134840 

 COA: 269605 
 Wayne CC: 04-005425-01 

KEENAN LEE ROBINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REVERSE the July 17, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals denying the motion to file 

a supplemental brief, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for plenary 

consideration of the issue raised in the defendant’s supplemental brief: whether the trial 

court’s upward departure from the applicable sentencing guidelines range, and extent of 

departure, were supported by substantial and compelling reasons. People v Babcock, 469 

Mich 247 (2003). The Court of Appeals shall issue an order permitting the prosecutor to 

respond. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

WEAVER J., would deny leave to appeal. 

YOUNG, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order reversing the order of the Court of 

Appeals denying defendant’s motion to file a supplemental brief and remanding this case 

to the Court of Appeals for plenary consideration of the issue raised in defendant’s 

supplemental brief. A party may not file a supplemental brief in the Court of Appeals 

except “by leave of the Court.” MCR 7.212(G). With the assistance of counsel, 

defendant filed his initial brief on September 5, 2006. Upon defendant’s request, his 

counsel filed in the trial court a motion to withdraw, which was granted on February 15, 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

2007. Substitute counsel was appointed on April 19, 2007. On July 9, 2007, the day 

before this case was submitted on the case call, substitute counsel moved to file a 

supplemental brief. On July 17, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied defendant’s motion 

and returned the supplemental brief. I disagree with the majority that the Court of 

Appeals abused its discretion by denying defendant’s 11th hour motion to add issues to 

his appeal. Therefore, I would deny his application and require him to raise these issues 

in a motion for relief from judgment. 

CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, J. 

p1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 27, 2007 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 72 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 72

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to furnish hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans with 
       traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Gosar) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to furnish hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans with 
       traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TBI and PTSD Treatment Act''.

SEC. 2. HYPERBARIC OXYGEN THERAPY FOR VETERANS WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN 
              INJURY OR POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1710E the following new section:
``Sec. 1710F. Traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress 
              disorder: hyperbaric oxygen therapy
    ``(a) Authority.--The Secretary shall furnish hyperbaric oxygen 
therapy to a veteran who has a condition specified in subsection (b) 
through a health care provider described in section 1703(c)(5) of this 
title.
    ``(b) Covered Conditions.--The conditions specified in this 
subsection are the following:
            ``(1) Traumatic brain injury.
            ``(2) Post-traumatic stress disorder.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1710E the following new item:

``1710F. Traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder: 
                            hyperbaric oxygen therapy.''.
                                 <all>
```
S.M.G. v. C.D.

2161076

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 16, 2017

Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

JENNIFER R. BENTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-073-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

March 15, 2006 (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March

20, 2006 (Doc. 24). The court has made a de novo determination of the Report and

Recommendation after consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the submissions of the parties, and

the transcript of the administrative proceedings. 

The court finds the objections to be without merit. The court further finds that the ALJ

applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports his decision. The court

also finds that the Report and Recommendation applied the correct legal standards.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00073-C Document 26 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 124
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 6:04-cv-00073-C Document 26 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 125
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0569

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ZACARIAS WAYNE RAGSDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 14, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 9 2023

07/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0569
Exhibit 10.28

MODIFICATION #2

TO THE AGREEMENNT



THIS MODIFICATION #2 is made to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement entered into on June 23, 2010 by and between INTERNATIONAL ISOTOPES INC.,  a public corporation incorporated in the state of Texas (hereinafter INIS) and STEPHEN LAFLIN, (hereinafter Mr. Laflin).



WITNESSETH:



WHEREAS, The original agreement between the Parties terminated on October 31, 2010 and Modification #1 extended that original Agreement to March 1, 2011; and



WHEREAS, Mr. Laflin is willing to extend the date of the Agreement to expire on April 30, 2011; and



NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the above, the Parties agree to modify the Agreement, entered into on June 23, 2010, as follows:



1.

Article 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 shall be modified to change the end date of the Agreement to April 30, 2011.



All other terns off the June 23, 2010 Agreement remains unchanged.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this agreement as of the day and year as signed below.





INTERNATIONAL ISOTOPES INC.



Date                   .





STEPHEN LAFLIN



Date                   .
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(a), created by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Shahid S. Asghar,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of ECC Capital Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated: October 26, 2006
# C_2021462EN.01003901.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Marina Yachting Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear (MARINA YACHTING)

(Case T-169/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Proceedings for the revocation of decisions or for the cancellation of entries - Cancellation of an entry in the register which contains an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Trade mark involved in insolvency proceedings - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or similar proceedings - Competence of EUIPO - Duty of diligence - Articles 20, 24, 27 and 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Articles 3, 7 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848)

(2021/C 462/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Industries Sportswear Co. Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Cervato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Joined Cases R 252/2019-2 and R 253/2019-2), relating to proceedings between Industries Sportswear and Marina Yachting Brand Management regarding the cancellation of entries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Industries Sportswear Co. Srl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marina Yachting Brand Management Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Industries Sportswear Co. Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald WARD

NO. 2019-KH-0084

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
#### Sampson Gavin, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Decision filed October 24, 1927.

*W. T. Bludworth,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*J. B. Johnson,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Carter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon transcript of the record of the judgment herein and upon briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment. It is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that *764the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., dissents.
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 Cygni Investments, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal
financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 results of
          operations of the Company.

Date:  November 9, 2006

/s/ Carl Suter
Carl Suter, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Michael D. Traina, certify that: 

1.      I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of ClearPoint Business Resources, Inc; 

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

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a)      Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b)      [Intentionallyomitted] 

(c)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d)      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
STATE of Louisiana v. Steve E. BODINE

NO. 2018-KO-1756

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of Kendle International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Candace Kendle, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: March 16, 2006

/s/ Candace Kendle
------------------------------
Candace Kendle
Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kendle International Inc. and will be retained by Kendle
International Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  
 **STATEMENT
        REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of Shineco, Inc. (the
          "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yuying Zhang,
          Chief Executive Officer, and Dan Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
          certify that:
  ·
                the
                    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                    or 15(d) of
                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                    and
 
 ·
                information
                    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                    the
                    financial condition and results of operations of the
                    Company.
   **/s/
          Yuying Zhang**
 Yuying
          Zhang
 Director,
          President and Chief Executive Officer
 
 June
          5,
          2007
  
 **/s/
          Dan Liu**
 Dan
          Liu
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 
 June
          5,
          2007
 
 
 This
          certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for purposes
          of
          Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2021471EN.01006601.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/66

---

Order of the General Court of 23 September 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)

(Case T-344/20) (1)

(2021/C 471/92)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
#### Moulton Harrell, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 25, 1927.

*Daniel & Plaice,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to th$ Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefor, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Spencer BERNARD v. GLENN LEGE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0342

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.
John ROPER II v. STATE

CR-16-0004

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.