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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2010 

d0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2010 

139613 

DANIEL KARRIP and MARY L. KARRIP, 

Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants-Appellants, 

v SC: 139613 

 COA: 283867 

Kent CC: 06-004602-CH 

HAMILTON MORTGAGE COMPANY, 

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff/ 

Cross-Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, 

Defendant/CrossPlaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

THOMAS PAEPKE and BETTY L. PAEPKE, 

Individually and as Trustee of THE PAEPKE 

LIVING TRUST and TRANSNATION 

TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Third Party Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 0060 3
- CR

Robert Joseph Yezak , Appellant

v. State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. FR 78644 , THE HONORABLE JOHN T. GAUNTT , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Robert Joseph Yezak has filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging various
actions allegedly made by the trial court. Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction

to consi der an appeal by a criminal defendant where there h as been a final judgment of
conviction

. See Workman v. State , 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) ; Curiel v. State , No. 13

- 2 1

- 00400

- C R, 2022 WL 1412320, at *1 (T ex. App.

— Corpus Christi

- Edinburg May 5, 2022, no pet. ) (mem. op., no t designated for pu blication)

. That general rule is subject to some exceptions, including some appeals where a defendant is on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State , 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex . Crim. App. 1997) ; appeals from the de nial
of a motion to redu ce bond, Tex. R. App. P. 31.1 ; and some appeals related to the denial of a
claim for habeas co rpus relief, id. ; Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (T ex. App.

— Dallas 1998, no pe t.)

.2 O ur review of the clerk ’ s record reveals that no final judgment of convic ti on or other appealable order has been entered in this case, and the trial cour t has certified that “ no action has occurred upon whic h an appeal may be predicated. ” Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2 ), (d ) (explaining that if trial court does not certify that defendant has right to appeal, “appeal must be dismissed”)

.

____________ ______________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismisse d for Wa nt of Jurisdiction
Filed: October 21, 2022
Do Not Publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

ROBERT DELEON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 5:04-CV-263-C

ORDER

Plaintiff is appealing an adverse decision of the Defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The United States Magistrate

Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on October 27, 2005. No written objections have

been filed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are

hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court and that the above-styled and

numbered cause is hereby reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. 

Dated December 2, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:04-cv-00263-C Document 20 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
# C_2019131EN.01001001.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional — Spain) — Nestrade SA v Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT), Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

(Case C-562/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC - Arrangements for the refund of value added tax (VAT) - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Company not established in the European Union - Preliminary and final decision refusing the refund of VAT - Incorrect VAT identification number)

(2019/C 131/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nestrade SA

Defendants: Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria (AEAT), Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC)

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986, on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing a time limit on the possibility of rectifying incorrect invoices, for example by the rectification of the VAT identification number originally shown on the invoice, for the purposes of the exercise of the right to a VAT refund, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected, which it is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---
**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 **

| 1. | The                    First Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company                    for the                    fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities                    and                    Exchange Commission (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 operation of the                Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 28, 2008 | By:    | *\s\                Jeff Huitt*                                                |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Name:  | Jeff                Huitt                                                           |
|                                | Title: | Chief                Financial Officer (Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
# C_2017104EN.01003302.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Maria Dicu v Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

(Case C-12/17)

(2017/C 104/48)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Dicu

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, in determining the duration of a worker’s annual leave, does not consider the period of parental leave for a child under two a period of service completed?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 2343** 

ALOYSIUS TABE BISONG , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appe als.

Submitted : May 10, 2012 Decided: May 14 , 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES , P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. St ewart F. Delery , Acting Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt , Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephen M. Elliott , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Aloysius Tabe Bisong , a native and citizen of

Cameroon , petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying h is motion to reconsider

.
Because Bisong fail s to raise any arguments that meaningfully
challenge the propriety of the Board’s denial of h is motion to reconsider in the argument section of h is brief, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. See Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must co ntain . . .
appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the spec ific
dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim
triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”). Accordingly,
we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the

Board. See In re: Bisong (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2011 ). We dispense

with o ral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately present ed in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Arnold I. WATKINS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3649

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 13, 2019

Arnold I. Watkins, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Arnold Watkins petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he is entitled to a new trial on drug-related charges based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, Watkins argues that appellate counsel should have raised on direct appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise Watkins of an entrapment defense. We dismiss the petition as untimely filed. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5). In so doing, we reject Watkins' claim that the two-year filing deadline should be excused in this case to correct a manifest injustice. "Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because such claims are more effectively raised in a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850." *Stewart v. Crosby* , 880 So. 2d 529, 531 (Fla. 2004).

DISMISSED.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Ray and Winokur, JJ., concur.
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 

# Order

March 22, 2017

1 55476 ( 18 )

WALTER EDWARD HARRINGTON

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 55476

COA: 3 35420

COOPER STREET CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY WARDEN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________ On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff’s motion to waive fees is DENIED because

MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.

Ordinarily, MCL 60 0.2963(8) would preclude plaintiff from seeking leave to appeal in

this Court because of an inability to provide the initial partial fee. However, applying

that statutory section to bar plaintiff from initiating an application for leave to appeal

from the original complaint for habeas corpus filed in the court of appeals would violate

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Smith v Bennett, 365 US

708; 81 S Ct 895; 6 L Ed 2d 39 (1961).

The Clerk shall furnish two copies of this order t o plaintiff. Plaintiff has 21 days

from the certification of this order to submit one of those copies to this Court. By doing

that, plaintiff becomes responsible for paying the $375 filing fee. MCL 600.2963.

Failure to timely submit the order will resu lt in the appeal not being docketed in this

Court. The Clerk shall retain plaintiff’s pleadings until he timely submits the order or the

21

- day period for doing so has expired.

Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial partial fee at the time he submits the order

to this Court. The Department of Corrections is directed to collect amounts equal to 50

percent of the deposits made to plaintiff’s account each month and remit $375 to this

Court when that full amount is collected. Plaintiff may not file further appeals in thisI, 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.

March 22, 2017

jam 2

Clerk Court from civil cases initiated by him until the entry fee in this appeal is paid in full.

MCL 600.2963(8).
EX PARTE Michael A. PEAK

CR-17-0002

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Provider's rating. See Beal, 865 N.E.2d at 1213 ("A reading of the contract 

should not render any portion meaningless."). 

The district court therefore properly granted summary 

judgment in favor of respondents. 1 See Lake Constr. & Dev. Corp., 621 

N.Y.S.2d at 338. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

Ara H Shirinian, Settlement Judge 

Ballard Spahr, LLP 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Carson City Clerk 

'In light of the parties' contract, summary judgment was also proper 

with respect to appellant's claim for unjust enrichment. See Leasepartners 

Corp. v. Robert L. Brooks Trust Dated November 12, 1975, 113 Nev. 747, 

755-56, 942 P.2d 182, 187 (1997) ("An action based on a theory of unjust 

enrichment is not available when there is an express, written contract, 

because no agreement can be implied when there is an express 

agreement"); see also PRG Brokerage Inc. v. Aramarine Brokerage, Inc., 

968 N.Y.S.2d 439, 441 (App. Div. 2013) (same). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 127 

Electing Karen H. Gibson as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the 

Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Karen H. Gibson as Sergeant at Arms and 

Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That Karen H. Gibson of Bozeman, Mon2 tana be, and she is hereby, elected Sergeant at Arms and 

3 Doorkeeper of the Senate. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:16-cv-07336-HRL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRO 

HAC VICE APPLICATION

Joseph LaCome applies for admission pro hac vice (Dkt. 3). Based on the papers 

presented, however, it is not clear whether he would be disqualified from such an appearance. See

Civ. L.R. 11-3(b). Accordingly, no later than January 11, 2017, Mr. LaCome shall file a 

response to this order, stating why, in view of Civil Local Rule 11-3(b), his application for 

admission pro hac vice should be granted.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-07336-RS Document 13 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:16-cv-07336-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Joseph LaCome Lacomelaw@gmail.com

Case 3:16-cv-07336-RS Document 13 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 17

- 00275

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.B. , et al., Children From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- PA

- 02146 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2017
DIS MISSED This is an appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. By order dated June 30, 2017, this appeal was abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing because appellant’s court

- appointed attorney failed to file an appellant’s brief. The trial court was instructed to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute her appeal and whether appointed counsel had ab andoned the appeal. On July 10, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing. After hearing the appellant’s testimony, the trial court signed an order finding appellant no longer desires to prosecute her appeal.04

- 17

- 00275

- CV

- 2

- The appeal is reinstated on the docket of this court. Based on the trial court’s order finding appellant no longer desires to prosecute her appeal, the appeal is dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2, 42.1.
PER CURIAM
H.S. and B.S. v. R.L. and B.L.

2160335

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

Affirmed.
Exhibit
10.1
  Description
of Prudential Savings Bank’s Fiscal 2009 Directors’ Compensation
  Compensation
to directors for their service on the Board of Directors is paid by Prudential
Savings Bank (the “Bank”), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Bancorp,
Inc. of Pennsylvania (the “Company”). The Company does not pay separate
compensation to its directors for their service on the Company’s Board of
Directors. For fiscal 2009, members of the Bank’s Board of Directors will
receive an annual retainer of $22,680 per annum, plus an additional fee for
special meetings at a rate of $1,890 per meeting. Members of the Audit
Committee, Executive Committee, Compensation Committee and Budget/Finance
Committee will receive fees of $840 per meeting attended. As Chairman of the
Board, Mr. Packer will receive an annual retainer of $74,702 in addition to
standard board and committee meeting fees. As solicitor of the Bank, Mr. Balka
will receive an annual retainer of $48,300. Mr. Balka also will receive the
normal meeting fees for service on the Executive Committee and the normal annual
Board retainer of $22,680.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129454 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129454 COA: 254407 Wayne CC: 02-015196-01 GERALD T. HAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presente d should be reviewed by this Court.

l1121 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.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 2 of 16 PageID 2
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 3 of 16 PageID 3
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 4 of 16 PageID 4
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 5 of 16 PageID 5
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 6 of 16 PageID 6
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 7 of 16 PageID 7
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 8 of 16 PageID 8
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 9 of 16 PageID 9
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 10 of 16 PageID 10
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 11 of 16 PageID 11
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 12 of 16 PageID 12
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 13 of 16 PageID 13
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 14 of 16 PageID 14
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 15 of 16 PageID 15
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02230-BF Document 1 Filed 10/14/04 Page 16 of 16 PageID 16
# FCA FY 2023