alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136431 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE Stephen J. Markman, 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Appellant, 

v SC: 136431 

 COA: 261747 
 MPSC: U-013917 

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 

COMMISSION, CONSUMERS ENERGY 

COMPANY, ADRIAN ENERGY

ASSOCIATION, L.L.C., CADILLAC

RENEWABLE ENERGY, L.L.C., 

GENESEE POWER STATION, L.P., 

GRAYLING GENERATING STATION,

L.P., HILLMAN POWER COMPANY,

L.L.C., TES FILER CITY STATION,

L.P., VIKING ENERGY OF LINCOLN,

INC., VIKING ENERGY OF McBAIN,

INC., and MIDLAND COGENERATION 

VENTURE, L.P.,

Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the issue 

whether “transmission costs” may be included in the power supply cost recovery factor, 

MCL 460.6j(1)(a) and (b). 

We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together 

with the cases of Attorney General v Michigan Public Service Commission (Docket 

Nos. 134667-9) and the related cases (bearing Docket Nos. 134671, 134673-4, 134676-

7), at such future session of the Court as these cases are ready for submission. 

l0916 

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. 

September 19, 2008 

 Clerk
Matthew T. Pickens, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 18, 2016

**71ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on September 11, 2015 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Perry H. Gravely be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Gravely shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Gravely shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
NO. 07-07-0412-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

		______________________________

	JOSE MARIA LOPEZ, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

	NO. 98968; HONORABLE JOHN B. STEVENS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Jose Maria Lopez, appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child and punishment assessed by the same jury of 99 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  We affirm.

	Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744- 45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.1

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice

Do not publish.
BURRIS v. THOMAS.

No. 16P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Jennifer M. Chandler, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Burris, Maurice Antonio.

*174Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, for Thomas, Kelly J. Commissioner.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2016 by Petitioner for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial infomation extracted from the 
consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statements of Income for the Three Months Ended June 30, 1997 (unaudited) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>              
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                         11,189
<SECURITIES>                                   12,849
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                      671
<INVENTORY>                                     4,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               39,075
<PP&E>                                          5,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 47,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,831
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           56
<OTHER-SE>                                     40,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   47,413
<SALES>                                        13,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,660
<CGS>                                           4,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                      997
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,772
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .29
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Joel A. Littman, certifythat:

1.                  Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CPI International, Inc.;

2.                  Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

3.                  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)               Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date:  May  14, 2007 | Signature: | /s/ Joel A.  Littman                 |
|---------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                      |       | Joel A. Littman, Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Francisco Fagundes, Plaintiff, v. Ammons Development Group, Inc. ; East Coast Drilling & Blasting, Inc.; Scott Carle; and Juan Albino, Defendants.

No. COA16-260

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

DISMISSED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted September 17, 2008

Decided September 18, 2008

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

   TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

   DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐1400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

RICHARD HARRINGTON,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 06 CR 67‐2

William J. Hibbler,

Judge.

O R D E R

Richard Harrington pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with the

intent to distribute and to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine.  See 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846.  The amount of cocaine triggered a mandatory minimum sentence of

five years’ imprisonment.  See id. § 841(b)(1)(B).  The written plea agreement acknowledged

the mandatory minimum sentence but also stated that based on the evidence known at the

time of the agreement Harrington was eligible for application of the “safety valve”

provision, so he could receive a sentence below the mandatory minimum.  See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(f).  But while preparing the presentence investigation report, the probation officer

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐1400 Page 2

discovered that Harrington had a previous drug conviction that translated to three criminal

history points, which made him ineligible for the safety‐valve provision.  See id. § 3553(f)(1).

The district court nevertheless sentenced Harrington to 51 months’ imprisonment—nine

months shy of the mandatory minimum—reasoning that Harrington’s poor physical

condition and cooperation with the government rendered the mandatory minimum

sentence unreasonable.

The government appealed the sentence.  Both the government and Harrington’s

counsel agree that the district court did not have discretion to impose a sentence below the

mandatory minimum.  Indeed, district courts may not apply the factors listed in § 3553(a) to

impose a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum even after United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).  See United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518, 530 (7th Cir. 2007); United

States v. Duncan, 479 F.3d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 2007).  District courts may impose a sentence

below the mandatory minimum only if the government moves for a departure based on

substantial assistance or if the defendant is eligible for the safety‐valve provision.  See United

States v. Crickon, 240 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2001).  Neither of these exceptions apply here,

which all parties and the district court acknowledged.  Accordingly, we grant the parties’

agreed motion to waive oral argument, vacate Harrington’s sentence, and remand the case

to the district court for resentencing.
STATE v. Marlon E. MENDOZA-MEJIA.

No. 420P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Mendoza-Mejia, Marlon E.

John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of December 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
ex1026.htm


Exhibit 10.26


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 



6
SCWC-13-0005700

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MATHEW LAWSON,

Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant,

vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent/Appellee-Appellee.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0005700; CIV. NO. 13-1-1331)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court

of Appeals at the time the application for certiorari was filed,

see Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also

Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for

writ of certiorari, filed March 3, 2015, is dismissed without

prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule

40.1(a) (2014) (“The application shall be filed within thirty

days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’

judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0005700

09-MAR-2015

09:24 AM
the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 9, 2015.

Mathew Lawson

petitioner pro se

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David C.
Mahoney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ David C. Mahoney
                                           -----------------------------------
Date:    August 12, 2005                   David C. Mahoney
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009113EN.01002802.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/28

---

Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 2 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Brigitte Ruf, née Elsässer, Gertrud Elsässer, née Sommer v European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH; intervener: the City of Frankfurt am Main

(Case C-408/07) (1)

1

2009/C 113/52

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Trans Energy,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2006,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lisa A.
Corbitt,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/   LISA A. CORBITT
------------------------------
Lisa A. Corbitt
Principal Accounting Officer
April 17, 2007

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
State v. Marvin Wade Millsaps

374P13-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Marvin W. Millsaps, For Millsaps, Marvin Wade.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of April 2016 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
STATE v. Gregory Lynn GORDON.

No. 132P11-8.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Gregory Lynn Gordon, Taylorsville, for Gordon, Gregory Lynn.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of September 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 743 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 743

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2007

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title 36, United States Code, to modify the individuals 
 eligible for associate membership in the Military Order of the Purple 
          Heart of the United States of America, Incorporated.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSOCIATE 
              MEMBERSHIP IN MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART OF THE 
              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED.

    Section 140503(b) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, spouses, siblings,'' after ``parents''.

            Passed the Senate March 1, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
State of North Carolina v. Christopher Lynn Hallum

No. 145P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Paul M. Green, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Hallum, Christopher Lynn.

Susan Fountain, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of April 2016 by Defendant 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 9th of June 2016."
PHILIPS v. PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., et al.

No. 368P12-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

C. David Creech, New Bern, for Pitt County Memorial Hospital Incorporated, et al.

Jay C. Salsman, New Bern, for Pitt County Memorial Hospital Incorporated, et al.

Sherif A. Philips, Greenville, for Philips, Sherif A. (M.D.).

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of November 2015 by Plaintiff for Petition for Reconsideration:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."