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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 March 2 3, 2020

a0318

Order 

Clerk

March 23, 2020

160196

THOMAS STOWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 160196

COA: 348157 

Ingham CC: 18-000025-NO

RICHARD GROVER and JOHNICK

RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2019 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27794-27795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12842]



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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefits Plans; 
Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. [[Page 27795]] 1142, 
a public meeting of the Working Group on Defined Contribution Adequacy 
of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans 
will be held from 9:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon, Wednesday, June 14, 1995, 
in Suite S-3215 A-B, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Third and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.
    This work group was formed by the Advisory Council to study issues 
relating to the adequacy of defined contribution plans for employee 
retirement income.
    The purpose of the June 14 meeting is to receive testimony from 
invited persons and to hold discussions concerning the following 
questions: (1) What constitutes an adequate retirement income?; (2) 
What defined contribution research and studies have been done? and (3) 
What further research, if any, is needed? The work group will also take 
testimony and/or submissions from employee representatives, employer 
representatives and other interested individuals and groups regarding 
the subject matter.
    Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address 
the work group should submit a written request on or before June 8, 
1995 to Linda R. Jackson, Acting Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory 
Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5677, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Oral presentations will be 
limited to ten (10) minutes, but witnesses may submit an extended 
statement for the record.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statement should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before June 8, 1995.
Olena Berg,
Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-12842 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 28, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00622

- CV

Appellant, Adolfo Gallela// Cross

- Appellant, Lauren Heather McMahan

v.

Appellee, Lauren Heather McMahan// Cross

- Appellee, Adolfo Gal lela

APP EAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal fr om the order signed by the tr i a l court on August 18, 2021

. Having reviewed

the record, the Court holds that Appellant Adolfo Gallela and Cross

- Appellant Lauren Heath er

McMahan have not prosecuted their appeals and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of

this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal s for want of prosecution. McMahan shall

bear her own costs relating to her appeal, both in this Court and the court belo w

. Because

Gal lela is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made as to Gallela

.
Order entered October 28, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01132-CV 

IN RE JOSHUA CORNELL SKINNER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-20176 

ORDER 

Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith 

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relator’s 

October 19, 2022 petition for want of jurisdiction. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

 CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,218,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,218,991
<PP&E>                                      22,395,185
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,231,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,382,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          561,352
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,821,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,382,499
<SALES>                                      4,281,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,281,028
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,990,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,990,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 3:13-cv-00204-JTM-CAN

)

WAYNE COOPER, )

)

Defendant. )

INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Wayne Cooper makes the following Initial Disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(1):

1. Individuals Likely to Have Discoverable Information:

Wayne Cooper

6 Surrey Lane

Elkhart, IN 46514

(574) 262-1458

Lori Cooper

6 Surrey Lane

Elkhart, IN 46514

(574) 262-1458

Both persons are expected to testify that Wayne Cooper did not commit the alleged 

copyright infringements.

2. Description of Documents:

Wayne Cooper has one hard drive for his personal computer and one hard drive for his

laptop. The hard drive for his personal computer was installed in approximately January 

of 2013. The prior hard drive for his personal computer failed and was destroyed in 

case 3:13-cv-00204-JTM-CAN document 36 filed 12/31/13 page 1 of 3
January of 2013. Wayne Cooper is making arrangements to have a mirror image taken of 

the hard drive for the laptop and the hard drive for the personal computer that was 

installed in January of 2013. Wayne Cooper also has receipts showing his location at 

certain dates and times.

3. Insurance Agreement:

Wayne Cooper does not believe he has insurance to cover this claim. He does not have an 

umbrella policy but has a standard homeowner’s policy.

4. Disclosure of Expert Testimony

Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Wayne 

Cooper makes the following initial disclosure regarding expert witnesses:

As of the time of service of these Initial Disclosures, Defendant Wayne Cooper has not 

identified any expert witness that is required to be disclosed pursuant to the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence. This Initial Disclosure with respect 

to experts will be supplemented as required.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/William D. Beyers______________________

HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS, LLP

Edward F. Harney, Jr., Attorney #17365-45

William D. Beyers, Attorney # 28466-49

54 Monument Circle, 4th Floor

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2996

Telephone: (317) 632-4402

Facsimile: (317) 632-5595

eharney@humesmith.com

bbeyers@humesmith.com

Attorneys for Defendant, C.G. Security Services, 

Inc.

case 3:13-cv-00204-JTM-CAN document 36 filed 12/31/13 page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 31, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was served by US

Mail on:

Paul J. Nicoletti

NICOLETTI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

36880 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

paul@nicoletti-associates.com

/s/William D. Beyers.

William D. Beyers

case 3:13-cv-00204-JTM-CAN document 36 filed 12/31/13 page 3 of 3
Anthony John PONTICELLI, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-9386.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Bong H. CHAE, petitioner, v. Robert HOUSTON.

No. 12-9486.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska denied.
REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To
Pacific Life Insurance Company:


We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's
Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,
that Pacific Life Insurance Company (the "Company") complied with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Regulation AB for the Securitized Commercial Mortgage Loans Platform (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
1122 (d)(l)(iii), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii),
(d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(ii), (d)(4)(iii), (d)(4)(vi),
(d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii),
(d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are
not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the
Platform. Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the individual
asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.


Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of
servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company
performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria
during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report, and accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria.


In our
opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for the Securitized Commercial Mortgage Loans Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.
   /s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7700** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DONALD MCLEOD, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 7:01

- cr - 00042

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : March 15, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un publis hed per curiam opinion
.
Donald McLeod, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Donald McLeod, Jr., appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006)
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. McLeod , No. 7:01

- cr - 00042

- F

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 2010) . 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 t he decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30148

Summary Calendar

 

JESSIE JERMAINE BELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF BATON ROUGE; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CITY OF BATON ROUGE; EUGENE SMITH,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-952

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jessie Jermaine Bell appeals the district court’s summaryjudgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

Bell contends that his lawsuit was not time-barred because he

had been incarcerated for 10 months and did not consult with a

private attorney about a possible lawsuit during that time.

Louisiana does not have a tolling provision based on a plaintiff’s
No. 03-30148

-2-

imprisonment. See Kissinger v. Foti, 544 F.2d 1257, 1258 (5th Cir.

1977). Furthermore, ignorance of the law does not toll the

limitations period. See Groom v. Energy Corp. of Am., 650 So. 2d

324, 326 (La. Ct. App. 1995). 

Bell further argues that the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds violated the due

process clause. Bell has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating

that the legislature acted in an arbitrary and irrational manner.

See Seoane v. Ortho Pharms., Inc., 660 F.2d 146, 151 (5th Cir.

1981). The one-year prescriptive period for filing a 42 U.S.C. §

1983 complaint does not violate Bell’s due process rights. See

Montagino v. Canale, 792 F.2d 554, 557-58 (5th Cir. 1986) (medical

malpractice case); Wayne v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 730 F.2d 392, 404

(5th Cir. 1984) (products liability case). The district court did

not err in awarding summary judgment to the City of Baton Rouge and

Smith.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11820]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 93-274; RM-8372]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Ely, NV

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Keith E. Lamonica, allots 
Channel 243A to Ely, NV, as the community's third local FM service. See 
58 FR 63319, December 1, 1993. Channel 243A can be allotted to Ely in 
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements without the imposition of a site restriction, at 
coordinates North Latitude 39-14-51 and West Longitude 114-53-16. With 
this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective June 23, 1995. The window period for filing 
applications will open on June 23, 1995, and close on July 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 634-6530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 93-274, adopted May 1, 1995, and 
released May 9, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, 
D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 
20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Nevada, is 
amended by adding Ely, Channel 243A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-11820 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Rel: May 17, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0526

Stephen D. Coker, Jr., Ann Coker Wing, Catherine Davis Coker, Quinton 

Scott Coker, and Caroline Coker Gehlken v. Douglas B. Davis (Appeal 

from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-20-901128).

PARKER, Chief Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Wise, Sellers, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 12
  TEXTRON
    FINANCIAL CORPORATION
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  Six MonthsEnded June 30,2006(Dollars in millions)Income before income taxes

$
105FIXED CHARGES:Interest on debt


157Estimated interest portion of rents


1Total fixed charges


158Adjusted income


263Ratio of earnings to fixed
    charges(1)


1.66x     (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed by
    dividing income before income taxes and fixed charges by fixed
    charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on debt and one-third
    rental expense as representative of interest portion of rentals.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,292
<INVENTORY>                                     45,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,682
<PP&E>                                          41,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,505
<SALES>                                         78,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,991
<CGS>                                           58,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   522
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (693)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (939)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)


</TABLE>