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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

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.

 December 9, 2015

d1202

Order 

Clerk

December 9, 2015

151400 & (50)

KIMBERLY L. SIMS, Successor Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF KAREN

A. MACASKILL,

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 151400

COA: 319297

Macomb CC: 2013-001126-NO

THE KROGER COMPANY and KROGER

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Defendants,

and

THE KROGER COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as 

cross-appellant are considered. The application for leave to appeal is DENIED, because 

we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior 

to the completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. The application 

for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

GEORGE RAMIREZ, Jr., AKA George

Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10523

D.C. No. 

4:11-cr-02322-RCC-JR-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,*** District

Judge.

FILED

JUL 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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 comeback case is suitable for

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

 *** The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the

District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3

When this case was last before us, we vacated George Ramirez’s sentence

and remanded for the district court to make “express factual findings” in

addressing Ramirez’s sentencing entrapment argument. United States v. Ramirez,

619 F. App’x 615, 617 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court made the required

findings on remand, and Ramirez now challenges those findings on appeal. We

affirm. The district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and the court did

not abuse its discretion by rejecting Ramirez’s sentencing entrapment argument. 

See United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294, 301–02 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Sentencing entrapment occurs when a defendant, “although predisposed to

commit a minor or lesser offense, is entrapped in committing a greater offense

subject to greater punishment.” United States v. Yuman-Hernandez, 712 F.3d 471,

474 (9th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.

2009). When the underlying crime involves a drug sting, the defendant must show

that he “lacked the intent and capability” to possess the larger quantity of drugs. 

United States v. Biao Huang, 687 F.3d 1197, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Ramirez failed to make that showing here. In recorded conversations,

Ramirez agreed to steal 500 pounds of marijuana and 10 kilograms of cocaine. He

argues that he was not predisposed to possess the cocaine because, although he had

a criminal history for drug dealing, he had only dealt with marijuana. Despite
Page 3 of 3

having several opportunities to object to the inclusion of the cocaine, however,

Ramirez never did so. Nor did he inform his parole officer that the government’s

informant was pressuring him to engage in criminal activity that he did not want to

commit. And although Ramirez expected that the storage unit would contain

cocaine, he did not hesitate to carry out the theft. The district court therefore

correctly rejected Ramirez’s sentencing entrapment argument.

AFFIRMED.
#### VESTRI, Respondent, v. F. W. GESSWEIN CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by John Vestri against the F. W. Gess•wein Company. L. Cohn, for appellant. T. J. O’Neill, for respondent

No opinion. Order modified, by inserting therein as a further condition that the plaintiff pay all costs of the action to date, and $10 costs of motion, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Order filed.
#### PERRY, Respondent, v. BATES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Action by Al-van W. Perry against Benjamin L. M. Bates. J. B. Stanchfield, for appellant. H. Taylor, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
EXHIBIT 4.2


AMENDMENT OF THE


 


AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION


 


SERIES D JUNIOR PARTICIPATING PREFERRED
SHARES OF


 





PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION


 


(Pursuant to Section 401(f) of the California
Corporations Code) 


 


We, Alex Chi-Ming Hui, President and Chief
Executive Officer, and John Chi-Hung Hui, Secretary, of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation, a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of California (hereinafter called the “Corporation”), do hereby certify as follows:


 


		1.	Pursuant to authority conferred upon the Board of Directors of the Corporation by the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation,
the Board of Directors adopted the following resolutions:



 


RESOLVED: That none of the
authorized shares of Series D Junior Participating Preferred Stock of the Corporation (“Series D Junior Preferred Stock”),
are outstanding, and none of the authorized shares of Series D Junior Preferred Stock will be issued subject to that certain Amended
and Restated Certificate of Determination Series D Junior Participating Preferred Shares of the Corporation filed with the California
Secretary of State on March 6, 2012 (the “Certificate of Determination”).


 


RESOLVED FURTHER: That the
Corporation be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to file with the California Secretary of State an amendment to the Certificate
of Determination (the “Amended Certificate of Determination”) containing these resolutions, with the purpose
of decreasing the authorized number of Series D Junior Preferred Stock to zero, and as a result under the California Corporations
Code the Series D Junior Preferred Stock shall no longer be an authorized series of the Corporation.


 


RESOLVED FURTHER: That Alex
Chi-Ming Hui (Chief Executive Officer and President) and John Chi-Hung Hui (Secretary) be, and each hereby is, authorized and directed,
for and on behalf of the Corporation and in its name, to execute and file the Amended Certificate of Determination substantially
in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto, and to take such further actions as they may deem necessary or appropriate to
carry out the intent of the foregoing resolutions in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Corporations Code.


 


		2.	The foregoing amendment of the Certificate of Determination has been duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.



 


We further declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the matters set forth in this Amended Certificate of Determination are true and
correct of our own knowledge.


 


Executed at Milpitas, California on March
6, 2015.


 


	 	
        /s/ Alex Chi-Ming Hui

        

	 	Alex Chi-Ming Hui
	 	Chief Executive Officer and President
	 	 
	 	
        /s/ John Chi-Hung Hui

        

	 	John Chi-Hung Hui 
	 	Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RADNOR
HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                           3,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,296
<PP&E>                                         230,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,419
<BONDS>                                        222,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,561
<SALES>                                         97,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,296
<CGS>                                           73,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,980
<INCOME-TAX>                                       753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,227
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (99)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 3.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**TO CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**OF RFS PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**

 

 

Dated as of August 2, 1993

 

----

 

**CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

 

**RFS PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**

 

1.                                       The name of thelimited partnership is RFS Partnership, L.P.

 

2.                                       The limitedpartnership’s initial registered office is located at 1213 Park Place Center,Suite 200, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee 38119.  The initial registered agent at that office is Robert M. Solmson.

 

3.                                       The principaloffice of the limited partnership is 1213 Park Place Center, Suite 200,Memphis, Tennessee 38119.

 

4.                                       The generalpartner of the limited partnership is RFS Hotel Investors, Inc., a Tennesseecorporation whose address is 1213 Park Place Center, Suite 200, Memphis,Tennessee 38119.

 
| Dated: | August 2, 1993. |                             |   |
|--------|-----------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   |            |                             |
|   |            | RFS Partnership, L.P.            |
|   |            |                             |
|   |            | By its General Partner:          |
|   |            |                             |
|   |            | RFS HOTEL INVESTORS, INC.        |
|   |            |                             |
|   |            | /s/  Robert M. Solmson |   |
|   |            | Robert M. Solmson, President     |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13377]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Advisory General Medical Sciences Council, September 01, 2021, 09:30 
a.m. to September 02, 2021, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 
Natcher Building, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 which 
was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2020, FR Doc 
2020-28902, 85 FR 86940.
    The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date and time 
from September 1-2, 2021, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to September 9, 2021, 
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

    Dated: June 14, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13377 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony FEURTADO, a/k/a Anthony Greene, a/k/a Ginzo, a/k/a Gap, a/k/a Pretty Tony, a/k/a Tony Feurtado, a/k/a Anthony Lamar Brown, a/k/a Anthony Paul, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-4350.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 17, 2008.

Decided: Aug. 28, 2008.

Anthony Feurtado, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Feurtado, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s amended criminal judgment sentencing him to 210 months of imprisonment. We conclude that Feurtado’s notice of appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). The district court, upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal an additional thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); *United States v. Raynor,*939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). Feurtado’s amended criminal judgment, correcting a clerical error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, was entered on December 12, 2007. He did not file a notice of appeal until, at the earliest, March 18, 2008, outside both the ten-day appeal and thirty-day excusable neglect periods. Thus, Feurtado’s appeal is untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny as moot Feurtado’s numerous pending motions.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Regal Entertainment Group

Subsidiaries of Regal Entertainment Group

Jurisdiction of OrganizationA 3 Theatres of San Antonio, Ltd.

TexasA 3 Theatres of Texas, Inc.

DelawareCinebarre, LLC

DelawareDigital Cinema Implementation Partners, LLC

DelawareEastgate Theatre, Inc.

OregonEdwards Theatres, Inc.

DelawareFrederick Plaza Cinemas, Inc.

MarylandGreen Hills Commons, LLC

TennesseeHoyts Cinemas Corporation

DelawareInterstate Theatres Corporation

MassachusettsNational CineMedia, LLC

DelawareR and S Theaters, Inc.

MississippiR.C. Cobb, Inc.

AlabamaRCI/FSSC, LLC

New YorkRCI/RMS, LLC

DelawareRegal/Cinebarre Holdings, LLC

DelawareRegal Cinemas Corporation

DelawareRegal Cinemas Holdings, Inc.

DelawareRegal Cinemas, Inc.

TennesseeRegal CineMedia Corporation

VirginiaRegal CineMedia Holdings, LLC

DelawareRegal/DCIP Holdings, LLC

DelawareRegal Entertainment Holdings, Inc.

DelawareRegal Gallery Place, LLC

District of ColumbiaRegal Investment Company

ColoradoRegal Stratford, Inc.

TennesseeSan Francisco Theatres, Inc.

CaliforniaStaten Theatre Group

New YorkUA SHOR LLC

DelawareUA Swansea, LLC

TennesseeUnited Artists/Pacific Media Joint Venture

ColoradoUnited Artists Properties I Corp.

ColoradoUnited Artists Realty Company

DelawareUnited Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.

MarylandUnited Artists Theatre Company

DelawareUnited Stonestown Corporation

California


---



QuickLinks
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">COD, LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Susan Smith Adelglass and Howard Adelglass, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated September 14, 2018, which denied its CPLR 4404(b) motion to set aside so much of a final judgment (same court and Judge), entered on or about July 31, 2018, which, in awarding possession to landlord in a nonpayment summary proceeding, limited its recovery for rent arrears to the principal sum of $6,691.9.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Jean T. Schneider, J.), dated September 14, 2018, affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Landlord's CPLR 4404(b) motion sought to increase its recovery for rent arrears by an additional $5,061 based upon purportedly newly discovered evidence, namely a stipulation of settlement from a prior summary proceeding between the parties dated March 16, 2017. Evidence only qualifies as "newly-discovered" if it was in existence at the time of the trial, but was inaccessible (<i>see Gagliardi v State of New York</i>, 148 AD3d 868, 870 [2017]), and could not have been produced prior to the conclusion of trial with the exercise of due diligence (<i>see Trimarco v Data Treasury Corp.</i>, 146 AD3d 1008, 1010 [2017]). This stipulation does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it was obviously known and accessible to landlord but not introduced at trial (<i>see Da Silva v Savo</i>, 97 AD3d 525, 526 [2012]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: December 26, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In
connection with this Annual Report of Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet
Torm (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Roland M. Andersen, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, 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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
 
 Date:
June 25, 2008
 
 /s/Roland M.
Andersen
 Roland M.
Andersen
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 
 SK 03810 0001 893016
v2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit: Riverside, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    US Salinity Lab
                        FAQ about salinity
                                    Publications
                                    History
                                    Scientific ModelsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Riverside, California Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News
- Home Page
- USSL Publications
- Special Publications
- Models
- Research Databases

Newsheadline bar  Agricultural Research Service News and EventsUSDA News and EventsUSDA News - employee publication - prepared by, for, and about USDA employeesNutrition.gov - USDA employee wellnessAgricultural Research Magazine - Current Issue| Archives    ARS News Articles  Saltier Groundwater Does Long Lasting Damage to Almonds, But Less Than Previously FearedJan 26, 2022Model Filter System Removes Antibiotics from WastewaterNov 18, 2020


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### SWEZEY, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF BATAVIA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Ap*1147pellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 19, 1907.)

Action by Hiram Swezey against the village of Batavia.

No opinion. Motion for leave to the Court of Appeals granted. Order to be settled and questions certified before Mr. Justice ROBSON on two days’ notice.
Exhibit 32

                                 CERTIFICATION


We, John O. Jones, Jr. and Robert J. Wilkins certify that:

1.   We have read this amended annual report on Form 10-KS/AB of Joning
     Corporation;

2.   To our knowledge the information in this amended annual report is true in
     all important respects as of August 31, 2002; and

3.  This report contains all information about the company of which we are aware
    that we believe important to a reasonable investor, in light of the subjects
    required to be addressed in this report as of August 31, 2002.

For purposes of this certification, information is "important to a reasonable
investor" if:

(a)  There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would view the
     information as significantly altering the total mix of information in the
     report; and

(b)  The report would be misleading to a reasonable investor if the information
     was omitted from the report.


Date:  February 11, 2004

                                                /s/  John O. Jones, Jr.
                                                --------------------------------
                                                John O. Jones, Jr. President


                                                /s/  Robert J. Wilkins
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Dr. Robert J. Wilkins, Secretary