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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

November 23, 2016

s1116 

# Order

Clerk November 23, 2016

151173

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151173

COA: 324779

Kent CC: 14

- 000623

- FH

NAJEE SHARIF WILKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2015

order 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.
STATE v. Truman Calvin BOONE.

No. 382P93-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Truman Calvin Boone, Winston-Salem, for Boone, Truman Calvin.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of January 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

ADAM ZYDNEY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 368 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54520-54521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18315]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area (SRA) Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council meeting 
will convene in Stayton, Oregon on Wednesday, October 5, 2005. The 
meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., and will conclude at 
approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the South Room of 
the Stayton Community Center located on 400 West Virginia Street in 
Stayton, Oregon.
    The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act 
of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory 
Council. The Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members 
representing state, county and city governments, and representatives of 
various organizations, which include mining industry, environmental 
organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic 
development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation 
interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 
on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the 
SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of 
the area. Tentative agenda items include project updates and season end 
reporting, Pearl Creek Guard Station restoration strategy subcommittee 
report, and future council membership.
    A direct public comment period is tentatively scheduled to begin at 
8 p.m. Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3 
minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material 
cannot be presented within the time limits of the comment period. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to October 5th by sending them 
to Designated Federal Official Paul Matter at the address given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information regarding this 
meeting, contact Designed Federal Official Paul Matter; Williamette

[[Page 54521]]

National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, Mill City, OR 
97360; (503) 854-3366.

    Dated: September 9, 2005.
Dallas J. Emch,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05-18315 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

1)              Form S-8and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Form S-8(Registration No. 333-07295) pertaining to the 1993 Stock OptionPlan, 1996 Director’s Stock Option Plan and Employees and Consultants StockOption Agreement/Plan

2)              Form S-8(Registration No. 333-58303) pertaining to the 1993 Stock OptionPlan, and 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

3)              Form S-8(Registration No. 333-87369) pertaining to the 1993 Stock OptionPlan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-44736)pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan

4)              Form S-8(Registration No. 333-86644) pertaining to the 1996 Directors’ StockOption Plan and 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

5)              Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 6 on Form S-3 to Form SB-2 (Form SB-2No. 333-476-LA) for the registration of 4,477,402 shares ofcommon stock and 328,500 warrants to purchase common stock

6)              Form S-3(Registration No. 333-88051) for the registration of 2,014,036shares of common stock

7)              Form S-3(Registration No. 333-52326) for the registration of 697,533 sharesof common stock

8)              Form S-3(Registration No. 333-95177) for the registration of 136,130 sharesof common stock

9)              Form S-3(Registration No. 333-100707) for the registration of 3,930,800shares of common stock

10)       Form S-3(Registration No. 333-104255) for the registration of 11,549,219shares of common stock

11)       Form S-3(Registration No. 333-107301) for the registration of 5,004,000shares of common stock

12)       Form S-8(Registration No. 333-110152) pertaining to the 2003 Stock Plan andrelated prospectuses

13)       Form S-3(Registration No. 333-113858) for the registration of 6,153,454shares of common stock

14)       Form S-3(Registration No. 333-120502) for the registration of 4,400,000shares of common stock

15)       Form S-8(Registration No. 333-120505) pertaining to the 1998 Employee StockPurchase Plan,

16)       Form S-3(Registration No. 333-123819) for the registration of $100,000,000of various securities, including common stock, preferred stock, depositaryshares, warrants, or debt securities, and

17)       Form S-8(Registration No. 333-127073) pertaining to the 2003 Stock Plan.

of ourreports dated March 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of SuperGen, Inc., SuperGen, Inc. management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SuperGen, Inc.,  included in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005.
|                                             |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| Palo Alto,  California  March 13, 2006 |   |                                |

 

----
State v. John Thomas Patterson, Jr.

424P15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Patterson, John Thomas (Jr.).

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of December 2015 by Defendant to Amend Notice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Forms S-3 No. 333-121393, No. 333-110581, and No. 333-114760 and Forms S-8 No. 033-79720, No. 033-79722, No. 033-94768, No. 333-05613, No. 333-05615 and No. 333-109767) of DARA
BioSciences, Inc. (formerly known as Point Therapeutics, Inc.) and in the related Prospectus of our report dated March 24, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DARA BioSciences, Inc. (formerly known as Point
Therapeutics, Inc.) included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                     
|Boston, Massachusetts
|March 25, 2008
# C_2009032EN.01000402.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Département du Loiret, Scott SA

(Case C-295/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Preferential price of a plot of land - Commission decision - Recovery of aid incompatible with the common market - Present-day value of the aid - Compound interest rate - No statement of reasons - Complete annulment - Lawfulness)

(2009/C 32/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Flett, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Département du Loiret, Scott SA (represented by: J. Lever QC, J. Gardner and G. Peretz, Barristers, instructed by R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 29 March 2007 of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission, by which the Court annulled Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1) in so far as it concerns the aid granted in the form of the preferential price for a property referred to in Article 1 thereof — Method for calculating interest due on sums unlawfully received: simple or compound interest rates? — Reasons for the choice of that method and reversal of the burden of proof — Point in time at which the existence of an unlawful advantage falls to be determined

Département du Loiret

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 2007 in Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission [2007] ECR II-851; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 2007 in Case T-369/00 Département du Loiret v Commission [2007] ECR II-851;

Département du Loiret

Commission

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
STATE v. Larry J. EDWARDS.

No. 82P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Larry J. Edwards, Norlina, for Edwards, Larry J.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of March 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the
 consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                          40,978
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   14,309
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     361,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                502,005
<PP&E>                          2,454,433
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,011,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,019,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,223,902
<BONDS>                         298,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     2,500
<COMMON>                        1,405
<OTHER-SE>                      (507,086)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,019,021
<SALES>                         87,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                87,735
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,401,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              28,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,337,272)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,337,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,337,272)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.02)




</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 19, 2017.

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, July 19, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A1742. RONNETTA BABATUND v. FOURTEENTH STREET VENTURE L. P. et al..

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration 

of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals 

Rule 13.

On June 20, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than June 30, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Latwang Janell REID, Plaintiff, v. STATE of North Carolina, Defendant.

No. COA15-1059.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

WAYNE TAN,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 10308

D.C. No. 3:20

- cr

- 08097

- SMB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16 , 2023 * *

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Wayne Tan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

121

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for aggravated

sexual abuse of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2241(c), and

2246(2)(B)

. Pursua nt to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Tan ’s counsel

* 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). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 10308

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Tan the opportunity to file a pro

se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Tan waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent

review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses

no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson , 582

F.3d 974, 986

- 88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal except as to

supervised release s pecial c ondition s 2

, 5 , and 9

. Alt hough the government elected

not to file an answering brief, it filed a letter stating that it would not “oppose

vacatur and remand of Special Conditions #2 and #5 . . . to permit the district court

to impose the District of Arizona’s post

- Nishida condi tions.” In view of this

position, we vacate special conditions 2 and 5 and remand for the district court to

modify these conditions in a manner consistent with United States v. Nishida , 53

F.4th 1144, 1151

- 55 (9th Cir. 2022)

. We also vacate and remand sp ecial condition

9 so the district court may reevaluate this condition in light of Nishida

.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with

instructions

.
# C_2009069EN.01003501.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 February 2009 — Omya v Commission

(Case T-145/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Request for information - Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Need for the information requested - Proportionality - Reasonable time - Misuse of powers - Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation)

(2009/C 69/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Ahlborn, C. Berg, Solicitors, C. Pinto Correia, lawyer, and J. Flynn QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by V. Di Bucci, X. Lewis, R. Sauer, A. Whelan and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, X Lewis, R. Sauer and A. Whelan, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 March 2006 adopted pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), and requesting the correction of the information communicated in the context of the examination of (Case COMP/M. 3796 Omya v J.M. Huber PCC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Omya AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
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 Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
M. Neer, Chief Executive Officer and President 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:

(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 Company.



/s/  Harry M. Neer
-------------------------------------
Harry M. Neer,
Chief Executive Officer and President
June 29, 2004


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40969

Conference Calendar

 

KENNETH D. FORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A SHAW, JR., ET AL.,

Defendants,

STEVEN MOORE, Sergeant; ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-699

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Kenneth D. Ford, Texas state prisoner #588298, appeals from

a judgment for the defendants following a jury trial on his civil

rights complaint. Ford argues that certain evidence was

improperly admitted before the jury and that the evidence was

insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. 
No. 96-40969

-2-

Ford twice asked this court for a transcript without stating

specific factual arguments supporting the issues he was

presenting and the specific reasons why a transcript was

necessary for proper disposition of those issues. A judge of

this court therefore denied his requests. Because Ford has thus

failed in his responsibility to provide this court with a

transcript, his appeal is DISMISSED. See Richardson v. Henry,

902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).

DISMISSED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1 D 2 0 2 3

- 2543

_____________________________

R.J.R.,

Appellant,

v.

G.R.S., In Re: The Matter of
B.L.S.

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. Darlene F

. Dickey , Judge

.

April 12, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.

D ISMISSED

. N.S.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs. , 843 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2003) (approving procedure that includes dismissal when, after counsel withdraws, the appellant fails to timely file his or her own brief in support of appeal of termination of parental rights).

L EWIS

, R OBERTS

, and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

R.J.R., pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.