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.

November 27, 2019

a1120 

# Order

Clerk November 27, 2019

156647

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156647

COA: 332089

Wayne CC: 15

- 005091

- FC

CLARENCE McMILLEN, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of July 6, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v

Urban (Docket No. 156458). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on

July 31, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is again consider ed, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             165
<SECURITIES>                                        23
<RECEIVABLES>                                      473
<ALLOWANCES>                                         9
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1006
<PP&E>                                             676
<DEPRECIATION>                                     460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              627
<BONDS>                                             13
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1306
<SALES>                                           1570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1570
<CGS>                                             1469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    78
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     56
<INCOME-TAX>                                        22
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 34
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        34
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.22
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5811 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 

Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to 

allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe to determine blood 

quantum requirement for membership in that tribe. 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5811 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENT DETER2 MINED BY TRIBE. 

3 Section 108(a)(2) of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and 

4 Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restora5 tion Act (25 U.S.C. 1300g–7(a)(2)) is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(2) any person of Tigua Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

8 Indian blood enrolled by the tribe.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6205 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as 

the ‘‘Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6205 EH

1 SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Private 

5 Isaac T. Cortes Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Private Isaac T. 

10 Cortes Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6205 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostCortes Post Office’’. Bronx, New York, as the ‘‘Private Isaac T. al Service located at 1449 West Avenue in
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerard Blasich, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered June 19, 1986, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Harrington, J.), after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress certain statements and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the hearing court’s determination that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the police and submitted to questioning regarding the murder under investigation *(see, Matter of Kwok T.,*43 NY2d 213, 219; *People v Lopez,*95 AD2d 241). Furthermore, the fact that there were outstanding charges to which the defendant’s right to counsel had attached did not preclude questioning on new charges, unless the police knew or had reason to know defendant was actually represented on the other charges *(see, People v Lucarano,*61 NY2d 138, 145, *rearg denied sub nom. People v Walker,*62 NY2d 803). At bar, the investigating detective specifically *838inquired of the defendant whether there were any criminal charges pending against him and the defendant replied that there were none. In light of the foregoing, it was reasonable for the police to rely on the defendant’s responses *(cf., People v Shavers,*69 NY2d 766; *People v Lucarano, supra; People v Casiano,*123 AD2d 712, *lv denied*69 NY2d 744).

Finally, notwithstanding the search warrant’s failure to particularly describe one of the items seized, i.e., sneakers, the circumstances indicate the evidence was properly seized as part of the clothing for which the police were searching *(see, Coolidge v New Hampshire,*403 US 443, 465, *reh denied*404 US 874; *People v Neulist,*43 AD2d 150). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6147 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for treatment 

of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of furnishing clinical 

psychologist services under the Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself and Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for 

purposes of furnishing clinical psychologist services under 

the Medicare Program. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6147 IH

1 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AS 

2 PHYSICIANS FOR PURPOSES OF FURNISHING 

3 CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

5 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ before ‘‘(5)’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting before the period the following: 

9 ‘‘, or (6) a clinical psychologist, but only with re10 spect to the furnishing of qualified psychologist serv11 ices described in subsection (ii) for which the psy12 chologist is legally authorized to perform by the 

13 State and who is acting within the scope of the psy14 chologist’s license (or other authorization under 

15 State law)’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished 

18 on or after January 1, 2011. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 13.2

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Sanofi, a French société anonyme (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
March 6, 2018



By:

/s/ Jérôme ContamineJérôme ContamineExecutive Vice President Chief Financial Officer (1)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sanofi and will be
retained by Sanofi and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|(1) | Principal financial officer.
|--- | ----------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from
        Electric  Lightwave,  Inc.'s Consolidated  Financial  Statements for the
        period  ended  September  30, 2000 and is  qualified  in its entirety by
        reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         13,639
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,121
<PP&E>                                         962,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 906,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,987
<BONDS>                                        832,586
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       507
<OTHER-SE>                                     (77,334)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   906,280
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,008
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  56,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               38,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             54,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (101,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   940
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (102,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (102,689)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.04)



</TABLE>
```

Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Alberto DiBella, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and
Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Alberto DiBella
Alberto DiBella
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

November 14, 2002
```
(85 South. 923)

#### ORR et al. v. STEWART.

(8 Div. 233.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 29, 1920.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1920.)

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

E. C. Nix, of Albany, and E. W. Godbey, of Decatur, for appellants.

John R. Sample, of Heartsells, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

Petition of Lattie Orr and others for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered in the case of Lattie Orr et al. v. S. E. Stewart, 84 South. 555. Writ denied.
Exhibit 15.1

LOGO

462 7th Avenue

14th Floor

New York, NY 10018

P:  (212) 302-7900

F:  (212) 244-2932

www.aecpa.com

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-146265) and Forms F-3 (File Nos. 333-114504 and 333-130632) of ViryaNet Ltd. of our report dated July 15, 2011, relating to the financial statements of the Company included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year
ended December 31, 2010.



|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/ Arik Eshel, CPA & Assoc., PC
|New York, NY, USA               
|July 15, 2011
#### Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v Joseph Grabarcik et al., Defendants, and Adrian DeVisser, Jr., Appellant.

— In an action for a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of the parties under a homeowner’s insurance policy, the defendant Adrian DeVisser, Jr., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated June 9, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that the homeowner’s policy excludes from coverage a boat owned by the defendant Joseph Grabarcik.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal on proper papers, if the plaintiff is so advised.

A party seeking summary judgment is obligated to establish in the first instance its entitlement to the drastic relief sought. "[A]nything less requires a denial of the motion, even where the opposing papers are insufficient” *(Greenberg v Manlon Realty,*43 AD2d 968, 969). In this case, the plaintiff submitted no sworn statement to support its factual contentions and submitted neither the entire policy nor the indorsement pursuant to which the rights and obligations of the parties are to be declared. Therefore, the motion should have been denied. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 4680

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN DALEY STROTHERS, a/k/a Giovanni Daliente Strassini , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:16

- cr - 00212

- GCM

- DSC

- 1 )

Submitted : August 19, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sandra Barrett , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Andrew Murray , United States Attorney, Amy E

. Ray, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Daley Strothers was convicted following a jury trial of use of a false document in a federal matter, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) (2012) ; possession of an identification document to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4) (2012); passport application fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2012); and making a false statement in a federal matter, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2012), and received a sen tence of six months’ imprisonment. Strothers appeals, arguing that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by making improper comments during closing argument. A prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument will require reversal if they were (1) improper, an d (2) “so prejudiced the defendant's substantial rights that the defendant was denied a fair trial.” United States v. Saint Louis , 889 F.3d 145, 156 (4th Cir. 2018 ). Where, as here, the defendant fails to object, we review only for plain error “and grant relief only if there was a plain error that affected [Strothers ’ ] substantial rights and would seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Lopez , 860 F.3d 201, 215 (4th Cir. 2017). When deter mining whether the prosecution’s improper remarks were sufficiently prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial, this court considers: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor’s remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) absent the remarks, the strength of competent proof introduced to establish the guilt of the accused; (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneo us matters; (5) whether the prosecutor’s remarks were invited by improper conduct of defense counsel;3 and (6) whether curative instructions were given to the jury. United States v. Baptiste , 596 F.3d 214, 226

- 27 (4th Cir. 2010). With these standards in mind, our review of the record does not reveal the existence of any prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, Strothers is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we
affirm the criminal judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF CNA SURETY CORPORATION
EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES AND SCHEDULES THERETO
INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           413,493
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 471,137
<CASH>                                          29,019
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              61,110
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          77,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 822,530
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                158,117
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            185,623
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           441
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   822,530
<PREMIUMS>                                      67,870
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,341
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 396
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      11,914
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     27,362
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            12,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,751
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,043
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,043
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.In connection with the Annual Report of Metrocorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gary D. Andersen,. Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 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 section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.            /s/ Gary D. Andersen         Gary D. Andersen    Chief Executive Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Metrocorp,Inc. and will be retained by Metrocorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.