alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132506 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y
DEBORAH COMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
J ustices

v SC: 132506 COA: 260362 Oakland CC: 2003-048275-NH HELEN ALEXANDRA PASS, M.D., JANE E. PETTINGA, M.D., and WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 22, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Ap peals for reconsideration, in light of Stone v
Williamson , 482 Mich 144 (2008), of whether this is a lost-opportunity case and whether
the defendants are entitled to summary disposition under MCL 600.2912a(2). On remand, the Court of Appeals shal l also consider the other issues raised by the parties, but not addressed by that court duri ng its initial review of this case, to the extent necessary to
resolve this case.

M ARKMAN , J. ( concurring ).

The trial court denied defendants’ moti on for summary disposition; but, after the close of plaintiff’s pr oofs, granted defendants’ motion fo r a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s orde r denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition and vacated the tria l court’s subsequent orders. MCL 600. 2912a(2) provides, in pertinent part, “In an ac tion alleging medical malpracti ce, the plaintiff cannot recover for loss of an opportun ity to survive or an opportunity to achieve a better result unless the opportunity was greater than 50%.” We recently ad dressed this provision with some
considerable lack of consensus in Stone v Williamson, 482 Mich 144 (2008)._______________________________________ __ 2

Plaintiff’s expert testified that th e decedent’s premalp ractice chance of not suffering from lymphedema or axillary cording was at least 97%, while her postmalpractice chance of not suffering from lymphedema was 82% and her postmalpractice chance of not suffering from ax illary cording was 90% . I believe that this is a lost opportunity cause of action because “it is possible that the bad outcome would have occurred even if the pa tient had received proper treatment.” Stone, supra at 218 (Markman, J., concurring in the result only). Further, utilizing the formula described in my opinion in Stone, plaintiff satisfies the § 2912a requirement. I would reverse the Court of Appeals, but for th e fact that my opini on did not carry the day. Therefore, I
must accede to the remand order.

d1028 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.

October 31, 2008

Clerk
Hector ROSARIO-RIVERA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6146

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Massood JALLALI, Petitioner v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-246

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated May 9, 1997, with respect to the 
Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund Inc., incorporated herein by 
reference and to the references to our Firm under the headings "Financial 
Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Counsel and Auditors" in the Statement of 
Additional Information.
 



	KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
July 23, 1997
Exhibit
32.1  Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Virgin Media Inc. and
Virgin Media Investment Holdings Limited (the Registrants) for the three
months ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Neil A. Berkett, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrants, and Robert Gale, as Principal Financial
Officer of the Registrants, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of his knowledge, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and  (2)The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Registrants.   Date:
  October 29, 2009
  By:
  /s/ NEIL A.
  BERKETTName:
  Neil A.
  BerkettTitle:
  Chief Executive OfficerDate:
  October 29, 2009
  By:
  /s/ ROBERT
  GALEName:
  Robert GaleTitle:
  Principal Financial Officer  A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrants and will be
retained by the Registrants and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.  This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrants for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Harold BLAKE, Petitioner v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 19-5930

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN PABLO PACHECO-GARCIA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71674

Agency No. A205-412-379

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 16, 2016**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Juan Pablo Pacheco-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying his request for a

continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

AUG 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and review de novo questions

of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part

and grant in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Pacheco-Garcia’s request

for a fourth continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether

the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of

the evidence excluded as a result of the denial). In addition, the agency’s denial of

a continuance to seek new counsel did not violate Pacheco-Garcia’s right to

counsel, where the IJ had deemed his application for relief abandoned. See Ram v.

Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2008) (an IJ may “determine, in the

absence of a showing of good cause for an additional continuance, that the right to

counsel has been forfeited”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).

We reject Pacheco-Garcia’s contentions that the BIA ignored certain

arguments, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions, and incorrectly

applied the pertinent legal standard. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990

(9th Cir. 2010) (“[The BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every

contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and

announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive

2 15-71674
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks

omitted)); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and substantial prejudice to

prevail on a due process claim).

Because the BIA did not address Pacheco-Garcia’s contentions regarding

voluntary departure, we remand for the BIA to consider these contentions in the

first instance. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 15-71674
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**Certificationof CEO and CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of NTL Incorporated and NTL Investment Holdings Limited (the“Registrants”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), StephenA. Burch, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrants, and Jacques Kerrest,as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrants, each hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrants.

 
| /s/    | Stephen A. Burch        |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Stephen A. Burch        |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:  | November 9, 2006        |
|   |                    |
| /s/    | Jacques Kerrest         |   |
| Name:  | Jacques Kerrest         |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:  | November 9, 2006   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrants and will beretained by the Registrants and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrants for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
Charles CLARY, Petitioner, v. Lynn GUYER, Warden

No. 19-5242

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana denied.
Frederick Collins FERMIN, Petitioner v. PRIEST OF SAINT MARY-MARFA, TEXAS, et al.

No. 19-471

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018270EN.01000601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/6 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9007 — Porsche/Schuler/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 270/05)

1.

On 25 July 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018270EN.01000601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Dr Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (‘Porsche’, Germany), belonging to the Volkswagen group, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Schuler AG (‘Schuler’, Germany), belonging to the Andritz group, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | a newly created joint venture (‘the JV’, Germany). |

Porsche and Schuler acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over the JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Porsche: German car manufacturer belonging to the Volkswagen group. This latter is active globally in the manufacture and supply of motor vehicles and their components, as well as related financing and insurance services;

—   for Schuler: active in forming technology and offers presses, automatization solutions, tools, know-how and services worldwide to the metal and automotive industry;

—   for the JV: will build and operate a metal press plant in Germany.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018270EN.01000601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9007 — Porsche/Schuler/JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 229-64301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018270EN.01000601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018270EN.01000601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Jerome GASKIN, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6377

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

*567Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
D. B., Petitioner v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

No. 19-6457

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District denied.
(logo)BERKADIA®

 

 

Annual Statement asto Compliance

For the Year EndedDecember 31, 2018

 

*Morgan StanleyCapital, I Trust,*

*Series 2017-HR2*

 

Pursuantto Section 3.01 (37) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction(the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

        i.           Areview of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the periodhas been made under my supervision.

 

      ii.           To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled,in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughoutthe period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreementhas occurred and is continuing.

 

Berkadia,

 

 

/s/Mark E. McCool

MarkE. McCool

President

February10, 2019
----

**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**RULE      13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Date:                August 14, 2007 |                                /s/ Eugene E. Jennings                                                                         |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 | Name:     Eugene                E. Jennings                                                                                                                                     |
|                                 | Title:                      President and Chief Executive                               Officer |
|                                 |                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| Date:                August 14, 2007 |                               /s/ James W. Clark, Jr.                                                                              |
|                                 | Name:     James                W. Clark, Jr.                                                                                                                                    |
|                                 | Title:                     Chief Financial Officer,                              Secretary and Treasurer  |
|                                 |                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/24/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      424,966
COMMITMENTS
 142,358  197,984   94,956  160,864  105,174  398,178  398,114   26,788   26,852

CHANGES FROM 06/17/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -31,346)
  -3,788    4,273   -6,724  -23,346  -28,774  -33,858  -31,225    2,512     -121

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    33.5     46.6     22.3     37.9     24.7     93.7     93.7      6.3      6.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      215)
      63       92       85       41       42      162      171
```

----

Updated June 27, 2014
**
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of HeadHunterGroup PLC for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

I, Mikhail Zhukov, ChiefExecutive Officer, certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

 
 1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

 
Date: March 13, 2020  By: 
/s/ Mikhail Zhukov
   Mikhail Zhukov   
**Chief Executive Officer**

***(Principal Executive Officer)***
**
Cedric GRAY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6729

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 VIASPACE INC.
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of VIASPACE Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: August 11, 2006
    
    /s/ STEPHEN J. MUZIStephen J. MuziChief Financial Officer