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

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136861 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136861 COA: 281824 Wayne CC: 05-009379-01 DOMINICK DENNIS CHAROBEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 19, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1117 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.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth G. Chahine, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avigen, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

|Date: April 25, 2007 | /s/ Kenneth G. Chahine 
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Kenneth G. Chahine     
|                     | Chief Executive Officer

---
#### BUS & TRANSPORT SECURITIES CORP. *v.*HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 490.

Argued November 20, 1935.

Decided December 16, 1935.

*392*Mr. Albert E. James*for petitioner.

*Mr. J. Louis Monarch,*with whom *Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Mr. Sewall Key*were on the brief, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner — Bus and Transport Securities Corporation — challenges a deficiency income tax assessment for 1929, and says that the transaction from which the alleged taxable gain arose was reorganization within § 112, Rev. Act, 1928. Paragraphs (b) (4), (i) (1) and (i) (2) are specially relied upon.†

Jacobus owned practically all shares of two corporations, herein designated “A” and *“ B,”*which operated bus lines. The Public Service Corporation of New Jersey— the projector — desired to control these lines; and to that end engineered the following plan.

Public Service Coordinated Transport Company, affiliated with the projector, caused the organization of C. Easman Jacobus, Inc., took all the stock and paid therefor by transfering 2500 of the projector’s shares.

Jacobus caused petitioner to be organized and acquired all its stock in exchange for all shares of “A” and “ B ” corporations. Thereafter petitioner transferred to Public Service Coordinated Transport Company these “A” and “ B ” shares and took all shares of C. Easman Jacobus, Inc.

Thus, petitioner, through Jacobus, Inc., came to control 2500 of the projector’s shares. And Public Service *393Coordinated Transport Company became owner of all shares of *“A”*and *“*B ” corporations. Through these manipulations, the projector obtained indirect control of corporations *“A”*and “ B ” and the lines which they operate.

The Commissioner, the Board of Tax Appeals, and the Circuit Court of Appeals all rightly concluded that petitioner was not party to a reorganization within the statute. Certain corporate shares owned by it were exchanged for shares which another corporation owned. Neither party to the exchange acquired any definite immediate interest in the other. Nothing here, we think, even remotely resembles either merger or reorganization as commonly understood. *Pinellas Ice Co.*v. *Commissioner,*287 U. S. 462.

The challenged judgment must be

*Affirmed.*

†

 Margin of opinion in *Helvering*v. *Minnesota Tea Co., ante,*p. 378.
Exhibit 4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT

REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated November 29, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of Shaw
Communications Inc. as at August 31, 2011 and 2010 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended August 31, 2011, and the internal controls over financial reporting of Shaw Communications Inc. as at August 31, 2011.





|                  |  |                      
|----------------- |  | ---------------------
|Calgary, Canada   |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|November 29, 2011 |  | Chartered Accountants
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1073 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1073

 Supporting the goals and ideals of RV Centennial Celebration Month to 
recognize and honor 100 years of the enjoyment of recreational vehicles 
                         in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2010

  Mr. Donnelly of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Souder) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideals of RV Centennial Celebration Month to 
recognize and honor 100 years of the enjoyment of recreational vehicles 
                         in the United States.

Whereas 1910 marks the first year of mass-produced, manufactured, motorized 
        campers and camping trailers;
Whereas 1 in 12 households in the United States owns a recreational vehicle, and 
        over 30,000,000 recreational vehicle enthusiasts take part in this 
        affordable and environmentally friendly form of vacationing;
Whereas recreational vehicle vacations allow families in the United States to 
        build stronger relationships, explore the great outdoors, and take part 
        in healthy activities;
Whereas this homegrown industry, including recreational vehicle manufacturers, 
        suppliers, dealers, and campgrounds, employs hundreds of thousands of 
        people in the Nation in good-paying jobs across all 50 States;
Whereas recreational vehicles offer the freedom, comfort, and flexibility to see 
        all parts of the United States, from historic landmarks and national 
        parks to local campgrounds and sporting events; and
Whereas the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the recreational vehicle 
        into the United States marketplace will be celebrated June 7, 2010, at 
        the RV/MH Hall of Fame and Museum in Elkhart, Indiana: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of RV Centennial 
        Celebration Month to recognize and honor 100 years of enjoyment 
        of recreational vehicles in the United States; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to celebrate 
        this anniversary by taking part in recreational vehicle 
        vacations.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0519

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS JEFF RICHARDSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 27, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 21 2022

03/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0519
H. Res. 1329 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 6, 2010. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 5019) to provide for the establishment of the 

Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program, and for other purposes. 

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
2 

•HRES 1329 EH 

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 

clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 

XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All points of order against 

such amendments are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration 

of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the 

Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce or his designee. The Chair may not 
3 

•HRES 1329 EH 

entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill 

(as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Hannon Armstrong *& Co.*v. Digital Optronics Corp. et al.

August 30, 1991

Case No. (Law) CL910792

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

The petition for attachment must be dismissed. It does not allege that the principal defendant has estate or debts owing it in Alexandria. In fact, the address of the co-defendant is in Fairfax County.

Under § 8.01-534, a foreign corporation’s estate or debts must be within the jurisdiction where "the attachment is." This means where the proceedings are instituted not where it is to be levied. *Winfree v.*Mann, 154 Va. 683 (1930). Absent an allegation that the estate or debt is located in Alexandria, the petition must be dismissed even if venue for the underlying cause of action is properly found here. *Winfree,*supra, at 690.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14853]



[[Page 31902]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-52-042]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc., Notice of Filing

June 7, 2001.

    Take notice that on May 31, 2001, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams) tendered for filing a proposed refund plan for the 
distribution of Kansas ad valorem taxes pursuant to the Commission's 
October 11, 2000, Order Approving Settlement, and the December 13, 
2000, Order Granting Clarification. Williams states that since it does 
not have sufficient information at a working interest owner level to 
determine the ad valorem taxes and related interest for each applicable 
year of the refund period (1984 through 1988), it is proposing to 
calculate the jurisdictional portion of the refunds based on the 
jurisdictional percentage for the entire period.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.211 and 384.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practices and Procedures. All such motions and comments must be 
filed on or before June 21, 2001. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be 
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper (see 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm. Applicant's designated 
contact person is Gary W. Boyle at 918-573-2359.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14853 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Geneva MAYNARD, as Administratrix of the Estate of, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Christopher Ratliff, deceased, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON; John Doe, Officers of the City of Huntington Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1352.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.

Geneva Maynard, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Q. Ashworth, Michael R. Dockery, Steven Kenneth Nord, Offutt Nord, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees.

*783Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Geneva Maynard appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Maynard v. City of Huntington,*No. 3:09-cv-00101 (S.D. W Va. Feb. 25, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
March 26, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF E.S., A CHILD

NO. 14-14-00328-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, S.S., signed

March 20, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. The record shows that 

the judgment is not final. We therefore order the appeal DISMISSED.

We order appellant, A.N., to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31886-31887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Hubbard and Murphree Creeks Watershed, Tallahatchie County, 
Mississippi

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives

[[Page 31887]]

notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for 
Hubbard and Murphree Creeks Watershed, Tallahatchie County, 
Mississippi.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Homer L. Wilkes, State 
Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Suite 1321, 
A.H. McCoy Federal Building, 100 West Capitol Street, Jackson, 
Mississippi 39269, Telephone 601-965-5205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this federal 
assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant 
local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of 
these findings, Homer L. Wilkes, State Conservationist has determined 
that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement 
are not needed for this project.

Hubbard and Murphree Creeks Watershed, Tallahatchie County, 
Mississippi Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact

    The project concerns a watershed plan to provide supplemental flood 
protection and reduce threat to loss of life from sudden dam failure to 
the residents of the Hubbard and Murphree Creeks Watershed and others. 
The planned works of improvement consists of rehabilitating three 
floodwater retarding structures (FWRS) Y-17-72, Y-17-73, and Y-17-74.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited 
number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy 
requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the 
environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting 
Homer L. Wilkes. No administrative action on implementation of the 
proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 29, 2001.
Homer L. Wilkes,
State Conservationist.

    ``(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904--Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which 
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials.)''
[FR Doc. 01-14920 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-U
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josue Daniel DE PAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50393.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

George Manahan, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Scott Adam Pactor, Law Offices of Scott Pactor, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Josué Daniel De Paz appeals from the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

De Paz contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) imposing a sen-fence based solely on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, and (2) failing to adequately explain his sentence. The record reflects that the district court provided a reasoned sentencing explanation and did not otherwise procedurally err. *See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,*587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009).

De Paz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his over-represented criminal history and other mitigating circumstances. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances, De Paz’s sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Moscow Exchange FBOT Form

APPENDIX 12
[Commitment of the Chairman of the MOEX Executive Board]

Please find attached:

M an undertaking by the Chairman of the Executive Board (or functional equivalent{s]) of the
Moscow Exchange to notify Commission staff promptly if any of the representations made in
connection with or related to the Moscow Exchange’s Application for registration cease to be
true or correct, or become incomplete or misleading.


Moscow Exchange FBOT Form
APPENDIX 12
[Commitment of the Chairman of the MOEX Executive Board]

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick,

We hereby confirm that at the moment of the FBOT Application filing, all data contained in the
documents and applications is complete and true. We undertake to notify CFTC staff promptly if any
of the representations made in connection with or related to the FBOT Application for registration
cease to be true or correct, or become incomplete or misleading.

Yours sincerely,

fr

Alexander K. Afanasiev, Chairman of the Executive Board
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymundo Octavio RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50492.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Christopher Seth Askins, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Linda J. Lopez, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Raymundo Octavio Rodriguez-Aguirre appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Aguirre contends the district court erred by denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by ruling that Rodriguez-Aguirre failed to carry his burden of proving that he was substantially less culpable than the average participant. *See United States v. Awad,*371 F.3d 583, 591 (9th Cir.2004); *United States v. Hursh,*217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000).

Rodriguez-Aguirre contends the district court failed to consider the role of others in the offense. The record reveals that the district court properly compared Rodriguez-Aguirre to the average participant in the case. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt n.3(A); *Awad,*371 F.3d at 591.

*272Rodriguez-Aguirre also contends that the district court was required to point to articulate facts showing managerial culpability. That contention lacks merit. *See Awad,*371 F.3d at 591 (“The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a downward adjustment based on his role in the offense.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.