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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

Ju ly 26 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Ju ly 26 , 2017

155 715 ( 4 4 )

MELISSA A. REICHENBACH,

Plaintiff

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant

, SC: 155 715

v COA: 32 6355

Clinton CC: 1 3

- 024577

- DM

JAMES W. REICHENBACH,

Defendant

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee

.

___________________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee/cross

- appellant to

extend the time for filing her reply on cross appeal is GRANTED. The reply will be

accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before August 8 , 2017.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 136 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture in 

the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2009 

Mr. PETERSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Agriculture in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Agriculture 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $13,104,587 for the One Hundred Eleventh 

9 Congress. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 136 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $6,316,330 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2009, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2010; and 

7 (2) not more than $6,788,257 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2010, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2011. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1651 

Honoring Latinos for their continual service and sacrifice as members of 

the United States Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. MEEKS of New York, 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. 

SIRES, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HINOJOSA, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. FILNER, Mr. 

SCHIFF, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. POLIS of Colorado) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring Latinos for their continual service and sacrifice 

as members of the United States Armed Forces. 

Whereas Latinos have served in every United States military 

conflict since the Revolutionary War; 

Whereas 149,411 Latinos are currently serving as active duty 

members in the United States Armed Services; 

Whereas 80,051 Latinos are currently serving in the United 

States Reserves; 

Whereas 28,009 Latinos are currently deployed to Iraq and 

Afghanistan; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1651 IH 

Whereas 466 Latinos have lost their lives in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and 2,007 Latinos have been wounded; and 

Whereas 100 Latinos have lost their lives in Operation Enduring Freedom and 408 Latinos have been wounded in 

action: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors Latinos for their continued service 

3 in the United States Armed Forces; 

4 (2) recognizes the past service of Latino mem5 bers of the United States Armed Forces who have 

6 sacrificed their lives in order to defend the freedom 

7 and democracy of the United States; 

8 (3) commends leading Latino members of the 

9 United States Armed Forces for their long-time 

10 commitment to securing and defending the United 

11 States; 

12 (4) recognizes the significant role of Latino 

13 members of the United States Armed Forces to the 

14 success of ongoing military operations; and 

15 (5) urges the Secretary of Defense to support 

16 and encourage the Latino members of the United 

17 States Armed Forces and promote leadership 

18 amongst them. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Robert David McNEESE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-66.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1752 East Avenue J  #266


Lancaster, CA  93535


213-694-1888





EXHIBIT 32





Section 1350 Certification





As Adopted Pursuant To


Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002





Certification of the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





In connection with the Form 10-Q of Writers’ Group Film Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company
certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





August 18, 2009








Tal L. Kapelner, President


Principal Executive Officer





/s/ Ariella Kapelner


Ariella Kapelner, Treasurer


Principal Financial Officer





This certification accompanying the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





www.writersgroupfilmcorp.com*info@writersgroupfilmcorp.com
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 12

- 00902

- CR and 01

- 12

- 00903

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 1271999 and 1272000

Style: Michael Gregory Petty

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : June 10, 2013

Type of motion: Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief

Party filing motion: Appe llant

Document to be filed: Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If mo tion to extend time:

Original due date: February 7, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 3; most recent due date June 10, 2013

Date Requested: June 25, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 25, 2013

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Hi gley

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: June 17, 2013
Rodolfo CARRANSA-VELASQUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9169.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000745467
<NAME> MERIDIAN FUND, INC.
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 1
   <NAME> MERIDIAN FUND
</SERIES>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       81,328,075
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     128,834,365
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,055
<ASSETS-OTHER>                              12,205,275
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                             2,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             141,171,243
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      181,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                            181,050
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    79,378,180
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        4,787,284
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        7,065,474
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                            0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                     14,105,723
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                    47,506,290
<NET-ASSETS>                               140,990,193
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              772,615
<INTEREST-INCOME>                              514,137
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 810,019
<EXPENSES-NET>                               1,633,855
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        462,916
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                    13,587,360
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                   10,998,931
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                       25,049,207
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                    1,007,191
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                    11,919,392
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                        929,875
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                  3,745,935
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            537,870
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                    (44,693,312)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                      1,069,138
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                   11,919,516
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                        1,244,938
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                              1,633,855
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       151,203,280
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            26.28
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                    .11
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                           4.99
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                       (1.93)
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              29.45
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   1.09


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR01-17-000]


Raptor Natural Pipeline LLC; Notice of Rate Election

June 12, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 1, 2001, Raptor Natural Pipeline LLC 
(Raptor) filed, pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's 
regulations, an election setting forth proposed rates for firm and 
interruptible Section 311(a)(2) transportation services and stating 
Raptor's intent to continue providing Section 311(a)(2) storage 
services at market-based rates. Raptor seeks a fair and equitable 
determination from the Commission, regarding these rate proposals. 
Raptor's mailing address is P.O. Box 4783, CH 1068, Houston, Texas, 
77079.
    Raptor states that it is the successor-in-interest to LG&E Natural 
Pipeline L.L.C., and is an intrastate pipeline company within the 
meaning of Section 2(16) of the NGPA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 3301(16). Raptor 
will provide the services described above pursuant to Section 311(a)(2) 
of the NGPA through its facilities located in New Mexico.
    Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), of the Commission's 
regulations, if the Commission does not act within 150 days of the date 
of the Petition's filing date, the rates proposed therein will be 
deemed to be fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount that 
interstate pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar services. 
The Commission may within such 150 day period extend the time for 
action or institute a proceeding in which all interested parties will 
be afforded an opportunity for written comments and the oral 
presentation of views, data and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All motions must be filed 
with the Secretary of the Commission on or before June 27, 2001. This 
petition for rate approval is on file with the Commission and is 
available for public inspection. This filing may 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 
385.200(a)(1)(iii) and the instruction on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us.efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15235 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 449, Misc.

No. 536, Misc.

No. 538, Misc.

No. 545, Misc.

No. 556, Misc.

No. 579, Misc.

#### Merrill *v.*Smith, Superintendent; Swain *v.*Duffy, Warden ; Canada *v.*Jones, Warden; Morse *v.*Lainson, Warden; Fredericksen *v.*Jones, Warden; and Williams *v.*Overholser, Superintendent.

The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.
Curtis C. PHILLIPS, Jr., petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 16M46.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 30, 2016. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 30, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0156. HAMILTON STATE BANK v. EMORY D. OZBURN, et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 13c072214
o'".:-CElVC\l I\L.. _! 'LL 

C. F. T.C. 

INDEPENDENT BAKERS ASSOCIATION 

P.O. Box 3731 • Washington, DC 20027 • (202) 333-8190 • Fax (202) 337-3809 ,::.~; ·. •'' ·-·~·-\:····~ •' ·' . ~ '··i·•·•' 

www.independentbaker..96m 

December 10, 2007 

David Stawick, Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

Re: Speculative Position Limits 

Dear Secretary St~wick: ;. '·; ,, ' 

COMMENT 

1· am Chairman of the lhde~end~ril.Bakers Association, .aJrade asso~iation with 

offices in Washin'gton and which represents over 400 mostly family owned 

wholesale bakeries and alii~~. in.dustry trades. \file are alarmed at your proposal 

to drastically increase th'e spe;culative position limits; in the case of wheat they 

are more than double! 

Numerous articles have appeared lately lamenting the disruptive influence that 

speculators are having on the commodity markets. As of the 4th Quarter of 2006, 

there was $170 billion dollars invested in commodities by hedge funds and 

pension funds. You could buy the entire annual wheat crop for only 10% of that 

much money. 

Your proposal would allow one fund to buy 11,100 contracts (55,500,000 

bushels) in one month. That is 11% of the entire crop of spring wheat which 

could be purchased by only one entity. What if three funds do the same thing -

now those three funds own 33%'of_the spring whe'a.t crop . 

.. 

Currently, the funds own 50% ofthe entire U.S. wheat crop. Your proposal ... 

would accelerate an already bad situa'tion where the market shows' all the signs 

of manipulation by ~ few huge funds. 
We know from Economics 101 the price is affected by supply and demand and 

allowing trades of this magnitude only will give enormous power and clout to the 

big funds to influence the market. If they can buy or sell 11% of the annual 

spring wheat crop in one day, you know the price is going to gyrate. 

Your website claims the mission of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(CFTC) is to "protect marketing participants against fraud, manipulation and 

abusive trade practices." 

In reading further about the commodity markets regulated by the CFTC, several 

examples are given about a farmer protecting the price of his commodity before 

harvest; one of the main purposes of the commodity markets. Tell me about a 

farmer who needs to sell 55 million bushels of wheat in a month since his current 

limit is only 25 million bushels. He must have a big farm - at 36 bushels per 

acre, he must farm 1,500,000 acres (that's about half the size of Connecticut). 

It is obvious that the real purpose of this proposal is to allow speculators to gain 

even more control over the markets and make huge profits on the backs of 

consumers who are already paying higher food prices. 

I urge you on behalf of the baking industry and the millions of the consumers who 

are suffering from this unreasonable speculation, to leave the limits in place. 

Yours truly, 

~111ft- M: John F. Popp 

I Chairman 

cc: IBA Board of Directors 

2
#### Juan Carlos Bernal ESTEVEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70781.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 4, 2008.

*538Juan Carlos Bernal Estevez, Grover Beach, CA, pro se.

Silvia Neofita Valerio, Grover Beach, CA, pro se.

Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Pad-dack, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Bernal Estevez and Silvia Neofita Valerio, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying their motion to reopen the underlying denial of them application for cancellation of removal based on petitioners’ failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen children.

In the motion to reopen, petitioners claimed that they could establish extreme hardship with new evidence of the female petitioner’s treatment for depression, and new evidence that their children continue to do well in school and should continue to avail themselves of special education opportunities in the United States.

Petitioners have not submitted new evidence of a new basis of extreme hardship to them qualifying relatives, and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners’ new evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish the requisite hardship to them qualifying United States citizen children. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Scott Lee DeSHAW, petitioner, v. ARIZONA.

No. 15-9057.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One for further consideration in light of *Montgomery v. Louisiana,* 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016).

Justice SOTOMAYOR concurs in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. See *Tatum v. Arizona,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 11, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016) ( Sotomayor, J., concurring). Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissents from the decision to grant, vacate, and remand. See *Tatum v. Arizona,* 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 11, --- L.E.2d ---- (2016) (Alito, J., dissenting).
No. 790.

#### Sales Affiliates, Inc. *v.*National Mineral Co., now Helene Curtis Industries, Inc.

C. A. 7th Cir.

*Hobart N. Durham*and *George B. Finnegan, Jr.*for petitioner. *Casper W. Ooms*for respondent.

Certiorari denied.
Samuel B. FORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6058.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0160

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANDREW LAIN GIBBS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as 

counsel of record pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 46-8-103(2) and Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant in this matter shall 

file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, 

including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate 

Defender’s Office. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give 

notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Appellant 

at his last known address.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 18 2022

03/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0160