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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 130005 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: 130005 COA: 254952 Saginaw CC: 03-022792-FH TWYMAN MARK BURNELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 10, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0221 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.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of the Chief FinancialOfficer Pursuant to**

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

**as****Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EdwardC. English, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Edward C. English |                    |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:                 | Edward C. English       |
| Title:                | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:                 | November 4, 2005   |
|                       |                         |  |

 

----
Exhibit 10.2


 


CHVC Licenses



	
            License Issuing Agency
 	
            License Permission
 	
            License Issue
 Date
 	
            License
 Expiration
 Date

 
 
	
            Telecommunication

Administration Bureau of

Beijing

 
 	
            Mobile Network Telecommunication Value-added Service
 	
            5/8/2005
 	
            5/7/2010
 
	
            Telecommunication

Administration Bureau of

Beijing

 
 	
            Fax storage and forwarding services
 	
            5/8/2005
 	
            5/7/2010
 
	
            Telecommunication

Administration Bureau of

Beijing

 
 	
            Internet Content Service - All services except news, publication, education, health care, medication, and medical equipment

 
 	
            6/2/2005
 	
            6/1/2010
 
	
            Telecommunication

Administration Bureau of

Beijing

 
 	
            Electronic Bulletin Board Service (BBS)
 	
            6/6/2005
 	
            6/1/2010
 
	
            Telecommunication

Administration Bureau of

Beijing

 
 	
            Internet Connection Service
 	
            10/24/2005
 	
            5/7/2010
 
	
            Telecommunication

Administration Bureau of

Beijing

 
 	
            Call Center Service
 	
            10/24/2005
 	
            5/7/2010
 



 


 


 


DAL:712962.1
#### Citibank, N. A., Respondent, v Recycling Carroll Gardens, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (George Bundy Smith, J.), entered April 16, 1985, which granted plaintiffs motion for a protective order and denied defendants’ cross motion to compel production of documents, is unanimously reversed, on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion for a protective order denied and the cross motion granted to the extent of remanding to Special Term to consider an application by plaintiff, if so advised, for the designation of a Referee to supervise the production and inspection of the documents to the end that data constituting trade secrets be not unnecessarily disclosed, or, in the alternative, for approval of a stipulation between the parties which would accomplish the same result.

Special Term, in granting plaintiffs motion for a protective *495order, held that the demand for the production of certain loan applications and related documents of persons who were prospective purchasers of shares in the defendant cooperative corporation violated the confidentiality those persons could expect from plaintiff. However, the purchase agreements executed by each of the prospective purchasers and given to plaintiff as part of each loan application provided, *inter alia:*"I shall furnish the Sponsor with copies of all loan applications which I may make, immediately upon submission of the same to the lending institutions.” This negates the bald assertion by plaintiff that its customers had an expectation of privacy with respect to the loan applications.

With respect to plaintiff’s claim that its procedures and policies governing approval of loan applications constitute trade secrets, this information is directly relevant to defendants’ counterclaims, which are based on the manner in which plaintiff applied its procedures and policies. Under these circumstances, documents claimed to constitute trade secrets are nevertheless discoverable *(see, Matter of Minerals & Chems. Philipp Corp. [Panamerican Commodities—World Commerce Corp.],*15 AD2d 432, *appeal dismissed*11 NY2d 1109, *mot to resettle denied*12 NY2d 672, *cert denied sub nom. World Commerce Corp. v Minerals & Chems. Philipp Corp.,*372 US 910).

We, therefore, grant defendants’ motion for production of the documents but remand to Special Term to ensure proper protection against any unwarranted disclosure of such data. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin McDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6196.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 29, 2011.

Kevin McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin McDonald seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and his other various motions attacking his conviction. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. *672§ 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S, 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDonald has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny all of McDonald’s outstanding 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EUROTECH,
LTD. BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997  
<CASH>                                                   0  
<SECURITIES>                                             0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                            6  
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0  
<INVENTORY>                                              0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        20  
<PP&E>                                                  15  
<DEPRECIATION>                                           3  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         155  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,447  
<BONDS>                                                  0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0  
<PREFERRED>                                              0  
<COMMON>                                                 4  
<OTHER-SE>                                          (3,287) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           155  
<SALES>                                                  0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0  
<CGS>                                                    0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       276  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,419  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (5,697) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (5,697) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                        (5,697) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       $(0.32) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       $(0.32) 
        


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128910 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, DEBORAH TUCKER, Personal Representative Justices of the Estate of JAMIE LYNN JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 128910 COA: 251771 Jackson CC: 01-003518-NZ MEIJER, INC. and GLENN MEYERS, Defendants-Appellees,

and

WENDY ADAMS, TOM TINKLEPAUGH, LAURIE JACOBS, JOHN DOE, employees and agents, and JANE DOE, employees and agents, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1219 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.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.2

                        VARI-LITE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
             FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND 1998
                      (In thousands except share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  1997          1998
                                                                                  ----          ----
<S>                                                                           <C>            <C>

Income before extraordinary loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             $2,956           $837

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             $2,956           $100

Weighted average shares outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          5,799,098      7,682,787

Dilutive effect of stock warrants after application of treasury stock
    method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             19,473            527

Shares used in calculating diluted income per share. . . . . . . . .          5,818,571      7,683,314

Basic income per share before extraordinary loss . . . . . . . . . .              $0.51          $0.11

Diluted income per share before extraordinary loss . . . . . . . . .              $0.51          $0.11

Basic net income per share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              $0.51          $0.01

Diluted net income per share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              $0.51          $0.01

</TABLE>
Order entered June 19, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00163-CV

No. 05-18-00164-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1-09-843 and 1-15-76

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants Sherry and Breena Rhodes’ June 16, 2018 first motion for 

extension to file briefs. They seek an extension, in part, because Breena cannot access the 

electronic copy of the appellate record provided them. 

We ORDER as follows. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a paper copy of the 

appellate record in each appeal, to the extent they are different, to Breena Rhodes. We GRANT

the extension request to the extent we ORDER the briefs be filed no later than July 30, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
##### 



CERTIFICATION
  Dated: December 21, 2005
    /s/ Michael W. BrennanMichael W. BrennanChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. Dated: December 21, 2005
    /s/ Michael J. HavalaMichael J. HavalaChief  Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. The information contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 1 of 17

George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Doc. 46

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 2 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 3 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 4 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 5 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 6 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 7 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 8 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 9 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 10 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 11 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 12 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 13 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 14 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 16 of 17
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 46 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 17 of 17
July 11 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JASON DEWAYNE HAGGER TY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00461

- CR NO. 14

- 12

- 00462

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below

. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment requiring reversal. The Court orders the judgment in cause number 1321005 AFFIRMED , and that this decision be certified below for observance. The Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered in cause number 1321004 , which is cap able of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment in cause number 1321004 is REFORMED , to reflect a conviction for possession of a controlled substance

. The Court orders the judgment in cause number 1321004 AFFIRMED as REFORMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Docucorp International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended April 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John H. Gray, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration 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 based on my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
          or 15 (d) of the Securities and 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



/s/ John H. Gray
------------------------------------
John H. Gray
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration
(Principal Financial Officer)
June 16, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kadeem R. Harris, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 854]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered May 17, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

*1485It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as a condition of the plea *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). “County Court engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” *(People v James,*71 AD3d 1465, 1465 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and the record establishes that he “understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” *(Lopez,*6 NY3d at 256). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, his “monosyllabic affirmative responses to questioning by [the c]ourt do not render his [waiver] unknowing and involuntary” *(People v Dunham,*83 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 794 [2011]). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255-256; *People v Gordon,*89 AD3d 1466 [2011]). Finally, to the extent that defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his guilty plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Jackson,*85 AD3d 1697, 1699 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 817 [2011]), we conclude that it lacks merit *(see generally People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44366-44367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17169]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 13, 
2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, 
Applications)

[[Page 44367]]

2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Woodforest Financial Group Employee Stock Ownership Plan (with 
401(k) Provisions) and the related Woodforest Financial Group Employee 
Stock Ownership Trust, both of The Woodlands, Texas; to acquire up to 
32 percent of Woodforest Financial Group, Inc., and thereby indirectly 
acquire Woodforest National Bank, The Woodlands, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 6, 
2021.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-17169 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1442

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new item:

‘‘ 9902.32.20 2-Amino-5-

Nitrothiazole (CAS

No. 121–66–4) (provided for in subheading

2934.10.90.00) ........ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.
2

•S 1442 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 enactment of this Act.

Æ