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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

July 30, 2013

p0722 

# Order

Clerk July 30, 2013

146805

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146805

COA: 303884

Wayne CC: 10

- 010299

- FC

ROBERT ANTHONY BOJAJ,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth
in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Steven M. Van Dick, in his capacity as Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Hansen Medical, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (i) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Hansen Medical, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 16, 2009



/S/ STEVEN M. VAN DICKVice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on 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 Hansen Medical, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act (whether made before or
after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Legend: This Schedule contains summary financial informatiom extracted
     from the consolidated financial statements of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc.
     and Affiliates for the year ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in
     its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001019361
<NAME>                        Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         34,869
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                   963
<INVENTORY>                                    34,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,646
<PP&E>                                         40,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          51,508
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       75,815
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,147
<SALES>                                        115,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,903
<CGS>                                          72,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  72,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               484
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,956
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .84
        


</TABLE>
Mona Lisa SMYTHE, Employee, Plaintiff v. WAFFLE HOUSE, Employer, and Osteen Adjusting Services, Inc., Servicing Agent, Defendants.

No. 333P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Thomas W. Page, Shelley W. Coleman, Charlotte, M. Duane Jones, for Waffle House.

Thomas F. Ramer, for Mona Lisa Smythe.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of June 2005 by Defendant (Waffle House) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7658** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WILLIAM JOHN CLARK , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins
. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. ( 2:05

- cr - 00044

- JPB

- JSK

- 2; 2:05

- cr - 00047

- JPB

- JSK

- 1; 2:08

- cv - 00118

- JPB

- JSK )

Submitted : April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , C ircuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William John Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William John Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit j ustice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) ; see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
STATE v. FRANKLIN.

No. COA05-126.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Terence R. Montgomery, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InfraSource Services,
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;

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;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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);

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2005

/s/ TERENCE R. MONTGOMERY
-------------------------------------
Terence R. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer
WINSTON-SALEM INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND, Petitioner, v. PDS CONSULTANTS, INC., et al.

No. 19-329

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION 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 of Telanetix, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




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




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




Date: May 14, 2010
/s/ Douglas N. JohnsonDouglas N. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09 - 7 3 92

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

P laintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. WILBERT HERMAN BROWN ,

Defenda nt
- Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Wester n District of Virgini a , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk , Senior District Judge. ( 7 :0 6

- c r - 0 0 098

- jct

- mfu

- 2; 7:08

- cv - 80102

- jct

mf u )

Submitted : March 22, 2010 Decided: April 7 , 2010

Before WILKINSON and D UNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Wilbert Herman Brown , Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bindin g precedent in this circuit.2

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Herman Brown seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (200 6 ). The magistrate judge recommended th at relief be denied and advised Brown that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recomme ndation. Despit e this warning,
Brown failed to object to the magistrate judge ’ s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the part ies have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brown has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receivi ng proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED