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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 29, 2010

s0922 

# Order

September 29, 2010

140465

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,- Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140465 COA: 293694 Kalkaska CC: 00-002060-FH MICHAEL TIRONI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 28, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we DIRECT the Kalk aska Circuit Court to submit to the Clerk of this Court within 28 days of the date of this orde r a written explanation of the circumstances surrounding the written communica tion(s) between the trial judge and the prosecutor that allegedly were not served on defendant and/or defense counsel, including the trial judge’s May 2008 memorandum to the prosecutor inquiring regarding the applicability of People v Nyx , 479 Mich 112 (2007), and th e prosecutor’s memorandum responding to the court’s request. The trial ju dge’s written submission to this Court shall explain whether these documents were served on defendant or defense counsel, and if not, the reason for this failure of service. See Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4) and Michigan Rules of Professional Co nduct, Rule 3.5 (prohibiting ex parte communications).

We further DIRECT the prosecutor to file with the Clerk of this Court within 28 days of the date of this order a written e xplanation regarding whether the documents in question were served on defendant or defens e counsel and the reason for any failure of service. Defendant may file a response to the prosecutor’s written e xplanation within 28 days after the prosecutor’s re sponse is filed and served.

We retain jurisdiction.
Patrick Henry MURPHY, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-7481.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
John Franklin KENNEY, Petitioner v. P.D. BRAZELTON, Warden.

No. 19-5773

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

p0129 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139116 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139116 

 COA: 289850 

Wayne CC: 05-003548 

CORNELIUS CARSWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
# C_2018051EN.01000501.xml

| 10.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/5

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2018/C 51/04)

Pursuant to the first indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

On page 339, in the explanatory notes to subheadings

On page 339, in the explanatory notes to subheadings

8525 80 91, ‘Video camera recorders’ and 8525 80 99,
  the following paragraph is added after the existing text:

8525 80 91, ‘Video camera recorders’ and 8525 80 99,

the following paragraph is added after the existing text:

‘These subheadings include remotely controlled apparatus for capturing and recording video and still images which are specifically designed to be used with multi-rotor helicopters (so-called drones), for example, through dedicated contact elements. These apparatus are used for capturing video and aerial still images of the environment and allow the user to visually control the flight of the drone. Such apparatus are always classified under these subheadings regardless of the length of the video recording as the video recording is the principal function. See also the HS classification opinion 8525.80/3.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.

2

---
IA 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 120 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the more than 5,000 

slaves and free Black persons who fought for independence in the American Revolution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2014 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Approving the location of a memorial to commemorate the 

more than 5,000 slaves and free Black persons who 

fought for independence in the American Revolution. 

Whereas section 8908(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, 

provides that the location of a commemorative work in 

Area I, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Commemorative 

Areas Washington, DC and Environs’’, numbered 869/ 

86501 B, and dated June 24, 2003, shall be deemed to 

be authorized only if a recommendation for that location 

is approved by law not later than 150 calendar days after 

Congress is notified of the recommendation; 

Whereas section 2860 of Public Law 112–239 (40 U.S.C. 

8903 note) authorized the National Mall Liberty Fund 

D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land in Area I 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 120 IH 

or Area II, as depicted on such map, to honor the more 

than 5,000 slaves and free Black persons who fought for 

American independence in the Revolutionary War; and 

Whereas the Administrator of General Services has notified 

Congress of the Administrator’s determination that such 

memorial should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the location of a commemorative work to honor the 

4 more than 5,000 slaves and free Black persons who fought 

5 in the American Revolution, authorized by section 2860 

6 of division B of Public Law 112–239 (40 U.S.C. 8903 

7 note), within Area I as described on the map entitled 

8 ‘‘Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and Environs’’, 

9 numbered 869/86501 B and dated June 24, 2003, is ap10 proved. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 24, 200 7 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v . TAM ELA T. SC OTT Appeal f rom the Circ uit Court for Cannon County No. F 05-02 Don Ash, Jud ge

No. M2006- 02067-CCA -R3-C D 

### - F iled Septem ber 17, 2008

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J., c on c ur ri ngin p a rt

a nd dis se nti ngin p a rt . Iconcur in the well-re asoned opinion of the majority as to all issues except the issue of the Def endant’ s sentence. T he majority opinion modifies the Defe ndant’s sente nce f rom one y ear

of con fi n ement followe d by six teen y ear s of probation to one y ear of conf inement followed by

eig ht y ear s of probation. As the majority

opinion points out, “the trial court re lated the sixt een- y ear term of pr obation to the need to ensure that the Defenda nt complied wit h the professions of reha bilitating her self that she made in her a llocution.” I n my view, this finding by the trial court is supported by the re cord a

nd rele vant sentenc ing pr inciples and should not be dis turbed on a ppeal. State v. Fletc her , 805 S.W .2d 785, 789 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)
. Iwo uld a ff ir m th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the tr ia l c ourt .

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018345EN.01001201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/12 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9104 — Bain Capital Private Equity/Esure Group)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 345/10)

1.

On 20 September 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018345EN.01001201-E0001) by which Bain Capital Private Equity, LP and its affiliates (‘Bain Capital’, United States), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Esure Group plc (‘Esure’, United Kingdom).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Esure: a company active in the provision and distribution of insurance services in the United Kingdom, including provision of home and more insurance. Esure also underwrites its own insurance products,

—   for Bain Capital: a private equity investment firm active in a wide-range of industries globally.

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_2018345EN.01001201-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.9104 — Bain Capital Private Equity/Esure Group

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 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018345EN.01001201-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_2018345EN.01001201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Christopher JOHNSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6033

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Rehaif* v. *United States* , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

AZUCENA MARTINEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

HARVEST CREDIT MANAGEMENT IV

B,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00074-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2006-076) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). Appellant represents that the parties have reached an agreement to

settle and compromise the dispute and requests that this Court dismiss the appeal. Appellee has

agreed to the motion and there is no indication that dismissal would prevent Appellee from

seeking the relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). We

therefore grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal pursuant to the parties settlement

agreement. As the motion does not indicate the parties have agreed otherwise, costs will be

taxed against Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

August 12, 2009

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00239-CV 

DEBORAH BELL APPELLANT

V.

DANNY L. HANEY, LAW FIRM OF 

COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD, 

AND ATTORNEY DAVID DENTON

APPELLEES 

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered the parties’ “Agreed Motion To Dismiss.” In the 

motion, it states that appellant has settled her claims with Cobb Martinez 

Woodward, PLLC and David Denton. It is the court’s opinion that the motion to 

dismiss the appeal as to appellees Cobb Martinez Woodward, PLLC and David 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Denton should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal as to Cobb Martinez 

Woodward, PLLC and David Denton. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f). 

The appeal shall hereafter be styled Deborah Bell v. Danny L. Haney.

Appellant’s brief is due Tuesday, February 18, 2014. 

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: January 16, 2014
Kenneth Robert SIMPSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6692

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Ed TEAGUE, II, Petitioner, v. REGENT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al.

No. 19-5674

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2 — Certification of Chief Financial Officer — Sarbanes-Oxley Section 906**Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. section 1350, the undersigned officer of Triad Guaranty Inc. (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: November 9, 2007         By:       /s/ Kenneth W. Jones    Kenneth W. Jones    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal L 60/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2014.060.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 60 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5728 February 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2014.060.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 60

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5728 February 2014

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (1) | 1 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) | 34 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (1)

1

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1)

34

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
John SCHICKEL, et al., Petitioners v. George C. TROUTMAN, et al.

No. 19-458

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
(logo)  TRAMER, SHORE& ZWICK, CPA’s

ENSURING EXCELLENCE

 

 

**INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACOCUNTING FIRM'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE**

**WITH SERVICING STANDARDSREQUIRED BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE**

**COMMISSION REGULATIONAB**

 

 

To the Board of Directorsand Shareholders

Bernard Financial Corporation

dba Bernard FinancialServicing Group

 

 

We have examined management'sassertion about Bernard Financial Corporation's (The Company) compliance withthe following servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Commission's Regulation AB: 1122(d)(l)(i), 1122(d)(l)(ii),1122(d)(l)(iv), 1122(d)(l)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iii),1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(i),1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi),1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi),1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xiv). The Company hasdetermined that these servicing criteria are applicable to the activities itperforms with respect to the asset­ backed securities transactions beingserviced at December 31, 2019 and the year ended. Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on Bernard Financial Corporation's compliance based onour examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards established by the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board of the United States and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with theservicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as weconsidered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examinationprovided a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

Our examination disclosed nomaterial noncompliance with the servicing criteria specified above. In ouropinion, management's asse1iion that Bernard Financial Corporation compliedwith the aforementioned servicing criteria for the year ended December 31, 2019is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

This report is intended forthe information of management; however, this report is a matter of publicrecord and its distribution is not limited.

 

/s/ Tramer, Shore &Zwick

Tramer, Shore & Zwick

 

Cleveland, Ohio 

February 5, 2020

 

 

23775 Commerce Park, Suite1 • Beachwood, Ohio 44122 • Phone (216) 765-8110 • Fax (216) 765-8166
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JOE DANIEL ADAMS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv406

LORI OLVIER, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Joe Daniel Adams, an inmate confined at the Shelby County Jail, proceeding pro

se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants.

Discussion

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, under which this case is brought, does not contain

a specific venue provision. As a result, venue in civil rights cases is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendant reside or in

which the claim arose. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and

witnesses and in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it could have been brought.

The actions allegedly taken by the defendants took place in Shelby County, Texas, which

is located in the Lufkin Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

Plaintiff’s claims therefore arose in the Lufkin Division. The defendants also appear to reside in the

Lufkin Division. However, this case was filed in the Beaumont Division. 

Case 1:23-cv-00406-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 12/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 17
The court has considered the circumstances and determined that the interest of justice would

be served if the complaint were transferred to the division in which the claims arose. It is

accordingly

ORDERED that this civil rights action is TRANSFERRED to the Lufkin Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 7th day of December, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00406-MAC-ZJH Document 4 Filed 12/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 18