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.

 September 30, 2019

s0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2019

156900

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156900

COA: 318329

Wayne CC: 11-011939-FC

ALEXANDER JEREMY STEANHOUSE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

By order of May 4, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2017 

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

Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been 

denied in Dixon-Bey on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the application is again 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment remanding this case to the trial 

court solely for resentencing. The Court of Appeals determined that only one of three 

reasons articulated by the trial court for departing from the sentencing guidelines was 

valid, that it was unclear whether it would have departed solely on that basis, and that its 

reasoning for the extent of departure was difficult to ascertain. Rather than remanding 

only for resentencing, the Court of Appeals should have remanded for the trial court to 

either resentence or to further articulate its reasons for departure. See People v Babcock, 

469 Mich 247, 258-259 (2003). We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to 

either issue an order further articulating its reasons for guidelines departure, or to 

resentence the defendant.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR 515. License No.
Name/Address
Date reissued16587N
Fescargo Corporation, 1145 W. Walnut Street, Compton, CA 90220
March 15, 20014607F
Jolaco Maritime Services Inc., 3620 Willow Bend, Suite 1102, Houston, TX 77054
January 7, 200111365F
Seawinds Freight Services, Inc., 601 Airport Blvd., Unit B, South San Francisco, CA 94080
February 28, 2001
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing .


[FR Doc. 01-11682 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
**Exhibit 32.1**
**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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/ Pamela Fredette  Pamela Fredette Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President May 12, 2005
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DEBBIE SUE JONES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1419

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon, Jr. , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appe llant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MICHAEL FAUCI

The cross petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 *922Conn. App. 150 (AC 24446), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17402X01.

*Denise B. Smoker,*assistant state’s attorney, in support of the cross petition.

Decided March 31, 2005

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial as a result?”

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this cross petition.
Case 1:07-cv-04507-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Clear All

        17 January 2024    

                    Profiles in Professionalism: Logistics Specialist 1st Class Bobby Veliz                 
                McAllen, Texas native Logistics Specialist 1st Class Bobby Veliz has served as a Training and Administration of the Reserve (TAR) Sailor in the Navy since July of 2002, currently assigned as supply department leading petty officer at Tactical Support Wing (TSW).            

        03 May 2023    

                    From War Bears to Mules: Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 60 Detachment 2 Provides Back-to-Back Critical Support to EUCOM, NATO Maritime Group 2                 
                Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 60 Detachment 2 (HSM-60.2), spent the majority of 2022 deployed supporting near back-to-back operations embarked aboard Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98) and USS Donald Cook (DDG 75).The “Jaguars” of HSM-60, based out            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
(104 So. 917)

#### Willie GREEN, alias Johnson, v. STATE

(6 Div. 340.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 7, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge. Murder, first degree.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
#### In the Matter of Harold Holtman, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

November 6, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Frank A. Finnerty, Jr. (Grace D. Moran*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 17, 1969.

On July 5, 1989, the respondent pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to scheme to defraud in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 190.65, which constitutes a class E felony.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to *16be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Harold Holtman is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Harold Holtman is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
Exhibit








SECOND ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT




THIS SECOND ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement”) is made as of April 1, 1996, by and between MELVYN J. POWERS and MARY P. POWERS, individuals d/b/a M&M REALTY, with an office address at 7 Finance Drive, Danbury, Connecticut 06810 (together the “Lessor”) and LORAD, A DIVISION OF TREX MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with an office address at 36 Apple Ridge Road, Danbury, Connecticut 06810 (the "Lessee").


BACKGROUND


As of December 26, 1995, Lessor and Lessee entered into a lease of certain premises at Apple Ridge Road, Danbury, Connecticut 06810, as therein more particularly described, and upon the terms and conditions therein contained which lease was amended by a certain First Addendum to Lease Agreement entered into by and between Lessor and Lessee and dated as of March 1, 1996, which lease as so amended is herein referred to as the "Lease”.  Lessor and Lessee have agreed to further amend the Lease in the manner hereinafter set out.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar each to the other in hand paid, receipt whereof being hereby acknowledged, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows:


1.    In the fourth line of Section 2.2 of the Lease, the words “April 1, 1996" shall be deemed deleted and replaced with the words “May 1. 1996".


2.     Except as hereby expressly modified, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect upon the terms and conditions therein contained.


3.    This Agreement is made under and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:




/s/ Margaret Caruso                /s/ Melvyn J. Powers


/s/ Claire A. Milano




/s/ Margaret Caruso                /s/ Mary P. Powers


/s/ Claire A. Milano

















LORAD, A DIVISION OF
    TREX MEDICAL CORPORATION

/s/ Maria Lena Tibbits    By: /s/ Raymond A. Calvo
      Its: V.P., Controller
/s/ S. Lee                        Duly Authorized
Case 1:07-cv-01545-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-01545-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


[LOGO]

                        Consent of Independent Auditors
 

The Board of Directors
Dauphin Deposit Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 
33-59941, 33-17401, and 2-73258) on Form S-8 of Dauphin Deposit Corporation of
our report dated January 21, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Dauphin Deposit Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K
of Dauphin Deposit Corporation.

Our report refers to a change in the Company's method of accounting for mortgage
servicing rights in 1995 and emphasizes that the Company adopted the provisions
of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's SFAS No. 121, Accounting for the 
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed of in 1996.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Harrisburg, PA 
March 17, 1997


[LOGO]
Clear All

        17 June 2022    

                    BALTOPS 22, the premier Baltic Sea maritime exercise, concludes in Kiel                 
                KIEL, Germany - Sixteen NATO Allied and partner nations concluded the 51st iteration of Baltic Operations 2022 (BALTOPS22) in Kiel, Germany, June 17, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0230. KELVIN DAVIS v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION.

This case began as a dispossessory action in magistrate court. Following an

adverse ruling, defendant Kelvin Davis, through attorney Grady Roberts, appealed

the magistrate court’s decision to state court. The appeal was dismissed on October

21, 2014 for failure to pay the cost bill within 20 days of receipt of the bill. Following

a number of additional appeals and dismissals, Davis filed a motion to set aside the

state court’s order. On January 5, 2015, the state court denied the motion to set aside.1

Davis then filed this application for discretionary appeal on January 13, 2015. We

lack jurisdiction.

Generally, an application for discretionary appeal may be filed within 30 days

of entry of the order sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). However, the

underlying subject matter of an appeal controls over the relief sought in determining

the proper appellate procedure. See Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d

192) (1994). The underlying subject matter here is a dispossessory judgment. 

Pursuant to OCGA § 44-7-56, appeals from a dispossessory judgment must be filed

within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v.

Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Because Davisfiled his application

for discretionary appeal eight days after the state court’s order was entered, it is

1

 Although there is no “official” order submitted with this application, Davis

maintains that his motion to set aside was denied on January 5, 2015, and there is a

signature, date-stamp, and handwritten notation on his motion to set aside that may

be construed as a denial of his motion.

January 29, 2015
untimely. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review this application, which is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/29/2015
Clear All

        25 April 2024    

                    Ships Announced to Participate in Fleet Week New York                 
                NORFOLK, Va. – Fleet Week New York (FWNY) returns to New York City from May 22-28 with two U.S. Navy ships, three U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and four U.S. Naval Academy Yard Patrol boats (YPs). Additionally, NATO allies from Germany will join the week-long celebration. Ships from the U.S. military            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-04424-AKH Document 2 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04424-AKH Document 2 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 12 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 12 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2009183EN.01000201.xml

| 5.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 183/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 13.5.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 420/08 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Restructuring of London & Continental Railways and Eurostar (UK) Limited |
| Legal basis | NA |
| Type of measure | Restructuring aid |
| Objective | — |
| Form of aid | — |
| Budget | Net financial support of GBP 5,169 million/EUR 6,466 million |
| Intensity | NA |
| Duration (period) | NA |
| Economic sectors | Rail passenger transport/infrastructure |
| Name and address of the granting authority | UK Secretary of State for Transport |

Date of adoption of the decision

13.5.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 420/08

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Restructuring of London & Continental Railways and Eurostar (UK) Limited

Legal basis

NA

Type of measure

Restructuring aid

Objective

—

Form of aid

—

Budget

Net financial support of GBP 5,169 million/EUR 6,466 million

Intensity

NA

Duration (period)

NA

Economic sectors

Rail passenger transport/infrastructure

Name and address of the granting authority

UK Secretary of State for Transport

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/index.htm

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2016

No. 04-16-00035-CR

John Gabriel SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10432

The Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This court’s order dated May 26, 2016, is WITHDRAWN.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 

U.S. 738 (1967). On May 19, 2016, appellant filed a motion requesting access to the appellate 

record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant’s motion to 

access the record is GRANTED. The clerk of this court is instructed to send a paper copy of the 

clerk’s record and reporter’s record for this appeal to appellant with this order.

If, after reviewing the record, appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within 

thirty days from the date of this order. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a 

responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this 

court.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2009279EN.01000601.xml

| 19.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 14 May 2009 regarding a draft Decision relating to Case COMP/M.4994 — Electrabel/Compagnie Nationale du Rhône

Rapporteur: Latvia

2009/C 279/05

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Electrabel has negligently put into effect a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) of the Old Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1)). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Electrabel has negligently put into effect a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) of the Old Merger Regulation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1)).

1

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the infringement of Article 7(1) of the Merger Regulation constitutes a case of qualified negligence that cannot be ignored. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the infringement of Article 7(1) of the Merger Regulation constitutes a case of qualified negligence that cannot be ignored.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Electrabel must be fined in accordance to Article 14 of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Electrabel must be fined in accordance to Article 14 of the Merger Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Jones, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: A prior juvenile offender felony conviction is a predicate felony for sentencing purposes *(see,*Penal Law § 60.10 [2]). There is no merit to defendant’s arguments *918that he should have been sentenced as a youthful offender and that his sentence was harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J. — manslaughter, first degree; assault, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 19 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 19 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 19 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01656-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-04507-AKH Document 31 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04507-AKH Document 31 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
(104 So. 837)

#### Ex parte Joe PITT.

(8 Div. 768.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 11, 1925.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

G. O. Chenault, of Albany, for petitioner.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., opposed.

BOULDIN, J.

Petition of Joe Pitt for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Pitt v. State, 20 Ala. App. 601, 104 So. 837.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.