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.

June 27, 2017

s0619 

# Order

Clerk June 27, 2017

153505

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153505

COA: 330907

Oakland CC: 2010

- 232531

- FC

EDDIE BROWN

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of January 31, 2017, the defendant’s former appellate counsel was

directed to file a supplemental brief. By order of February 17, 2017, th e Chief Justice

appointed substitute appellate counsel to file a second supplemental brief. On order of

the Court, the briefs having been received, the application for leave to appeal the

February 24, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered . Pursuant to MCR

7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland

Circuit Court for reissuance of the defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence. It is

unclear from the record whether the failure to perfect an ap peal of right was solely the

fault of the defendant’s trial counsel, who promised in open court to file the necessary

paperwork to begin the appellate process, but failed to fulfill that promise, see Roe v

Flores

- Ortega , 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v

United States , 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999), or whether trial

counsel filed the paperwork and the trial court failed to process it. Regardless, it is clear

that the failure to perfect an appeal of right is not attributable to the defendant.

We further ORDER the Oakland Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative

Order 2003

- 03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint

counsel to represent the defendant in the Court of Appeals.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 10.5



RESCISSION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT



This RESCISSION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT is
executed on this 12thday of July 2004, by and between Trimeris, Inc. (Trimeris), and F. Hoffmann-La
Roche Ltd. and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (collectively, Roche).



WHEREAS, Trimeris and Roche have previously entered into a Development and License Agreement (including its Appendices) dated as of the 1stday of July 1999, by and between Trimeris and Roche (the Agreement), which sets forth the Parties rights, duties and obligations under the
Agreement; and



WHEREAS, Trimeris and Roche have previously
amended the Agreement by way of an Amendment dated as of the 5thday of January 2004 (the First
Amendment);



WHEREAS, Trimeris and Roche desire to
rescind the First Amendment such that the First Amendment shall be considered null and void ab initio;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the foregoing promises and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree to rescind the First Amendment in its entirety.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Rescission to be effective as of the 5thof January
2004.



|               |  |                         |  |                          |  |                                                  
|-------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|TRIMERIS, INC. |  | HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC. 
|               |  |                         | 
|By:            |  | /s/ Dani P.Bolognesi    |  | By:                      |  | /s/ Dennis Burns                                 
|               |  | Dani P.Bolognesi, Ph.D. |  |                          |  | Dennis Burns                                     
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |                          |  | Vice President                                   
|               |  |                         |  |                          |  | Global Head of Business Development              
|               |  |                        
|               |  |                         |  | F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD
|               |  |                         | 
|               |  |                         |  | By:                      |  | /s/ Rudolf Schaffner                             
|               |  |                         |  |                          |  | Rudolf Schaffner                                 
|               |  |                         |  |                          |  | Global Head Legal Licensing                      
|               |  |                         | 
|               |  |                         |  | By:                      |  | /s/ Nigel Sheail                                 
|               |  |                         |  | Name:                    |  | Nigel Sheail                                     
|               |  |                         |  | Title:                   |  | Global Head of Acquisitions & Strategic Alliances
WEI SUN, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-1701.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Bryant Lamar MONIE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6912.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                               CFO CERTIFICATION*

     Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sec.
1350,  as  adopted),  Thomas  Cawley, Chief Financial Officer of Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc. (the "COMPANY"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.     The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September
28, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the "PERIODIC
REPORT")  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and

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

     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 15th
day  of  March,  2003.

                                        /s/  Thomas  Cawley
                                        -------------------
                                        Thomas  Cawley
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer





A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Peet's  Coffee & Tea, Inc. and will be retained by Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon  request.

*This  certification  "accompanies" the annual report on Form 10-K/A 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 Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.
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 annual report on
Form  10-K/A),  irrespective  of any general incorporation language contained in
such  filing.)
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 04/17/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      340,437
COMMITMENTS
  81,491   98,439   44,444  188,646  167,785  314,581  310,668   25,856   29,769

CHANGES FROM 04/10/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     17,908)
  -4,746   -5,332    3,262   16,690   17,481   15,206   15,411    2,702    2,497

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    23.9     28.9     13.1     55.4     49.3     92.4     91.3      7.6      8.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      126)
      27       56       53       29       36       93      115
```

----

Updated April 20, 2012
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer
of EarthShell Corporation (the "Company") for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

          (1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
               ended March 31, 2004 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 such report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


Dated May 10, 2004


By: /s/ Simon K. Hodson
    ------------------------
    Simon K. Hodson
    Chief Executive Officer


By: /s/ D. Scott Houston
    ------------------------
    D. Scott Houston
    Chief Financial Officer
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL., 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC 06/29/2023 /s/ Neil A. Rubin Neil A. Rubin SBN 250761

RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025

nrubin@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 06/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 244
EXHIBIT 21.01

PAUL-SON GAMING CORPORATION

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|Name                                 |  | State/Country of
Incorporation |  | Parent                                                               
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Establissements Bourgogne et Grasset |  | France                         |  | Paul-Son Gaming Corporation                                          
|Paul-Son Gaming Supplies, Inc.       |  | Nevada                         |  | Paul-Son Gaming Corporation                                          
|Paul-Son Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.      |  | Mexico                         |  | Paul-Son Gaming Supplies, Inc. (99%)
Paul-Son Gaming Corporation (1%)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, NOTES, THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                            11,322
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     43,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         413
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  86,589
<PP&E>                                                            10,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     1,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   128,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             61,247
<BONDS>                                                            3,129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                        5,000
<COMMON>                                                             121
<OTHER-SE>                                                        58,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     128,494
<SALES>                                                          163,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 163,586
<CGS>                                                            136,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    155,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    8,647
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       3,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                5,099
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       5,099
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.37
        

</TABLE>
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/06/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       35,718
COMMITMENTS
   3,500    8,762      636   20,992   15,613   25,128   25,011   10,590   10,707

CHANGES FROM 07/30/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        496)
     320      721      -91      441     -296      670      334     -174      162

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     9.8     24.5      1.8     58.8     43.7     70.4     70.0     29.6     30.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       61)
       8       15        6       31       24       41       44
```

----

Updated August 9, 2013
Asmerom GEBRESELASSIE, Petitioner, v. Scott FRAUENHEIM, Warden.

No. 19-877

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Brent Eugene SANCHEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5923.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Christian Dominique SCOTT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6355.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Shannon Dale DUKES, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-882

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/23/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       37,115
COMMITMENTS
   5,801    4,384    1,641   18,438   22,272   25,880   28,297   11,235    8,818

CHANGES FROM 04/16/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -913)
   1,525      194      -77   -2,258      -65     -810       52     -103     -965

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    15.6     11.8      4.4     49.7     60.0     69.7     76.2     30.3     23.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       55)
      14       10        8       26       22       43       38
```

----

Updated April 26, 2013
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the

Eastern District of Texas [:]

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Plaintiff 

V. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. and SPRINT CORP.

Defendant 

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:23-CV-00377, -379

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

T-MOBILE USA INC. and SPRINT CORP.

Date: __ 0�3�10�1=12=0=2�4 __ Isl Celine J. Crowson

Attorney's signature 

Celine J. Crowson (DC Bar No. 0436549A)

Printed name and bar number 

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th St, NW 

Washington, DC 20004

Address 

celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com

E-mail address

(202) 637-5600

Telephone number 

(202) 637-5910

FAX number 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 51 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 425
John William WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-6895

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2142 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2142

           To suspend for 3 years the duty on fenbuconazole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 1999

 Mr. English introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend for 3 years the duty on fenbuconazole.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON FENBUCONAZOLE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.32.86      alpha-[2-(4-        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/
                         Chlorophenyl)-                                                     31/2002          ''.
                         ethyl]-alpha-
                         phenyl-1H-1,2,4-
                         triazole-1-
                         propanenitrile
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.90.06)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2545

___________ Albert L. Pierson, * * Petitioner - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Dave Dormire, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 8, 2007 Filed: May 6, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Below, the district court held Pierson’s petition for habeas corpus relief was untimely. On appeal, we reversed. Pierson v. Dormire , 484 F.3d 486, 495 (8th Cir. 2007). We held Pierson’s petition was timely because our en banc decision in Nichols v. Bowersox , 172 F.3d 1068, 1072 (8th Cir. 1999), required us to consider the state court judgment against Pierson final ninety days after the Missouri Court of Appeals entered its judgment. This ninety days represented the window of time within which Pierson may have been entitled to file a wr it of certiorari with United States Supreme Court. The appellee petitioned our panel a nd our en banc court for rehearing. We-2- now grant in part the petition for panel rehearing, vacate in part our prior opinion, and remand for further proceedings. Subsequent to the issuance of our prior panel opinion in this case, our en banc court in Riddle v. Kemna , No. 06-2542, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 927618 (8th Cir. 2008), abrogated the ninety-day rule of Nichols . The court in Riddle , however, characterized this abrogation of Nichols as an “extraordinary circumstance, external to Riddle and not attributable to him” thatmight justify application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. Id. at *6. We ordered a remand in Riddle with instructions for the district court to consider application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. We believe the present case requires the same action on our part. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of our prior opinion in this case which held Pierson’s habeas petition was timely under the ninety-day rule of Nichols , and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Riddle

.

______________________________