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

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133362 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 133362 

 COA: 273538 

Macomb CC: 05-004877-FH 

MUTHANA MATTHEW SAIF,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of July 18, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v 

Cannon (Docket No. 131994). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on 

June 4, 2008, 481 Mich 152 (2008), the application is again considered and, pursuant to 

MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the 

Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of whether points for predatory 

conduct may be assessed for Offense Variable 10, MCL 777.40(3)(a) [exploitation of 

vulnerable victim], where the victim is a police decoy, and, if so, whether a defendant’s 

intent to commit other offenses and his entire course of conduct may be considered as 

“preoffense” conduct for purposes of assessing points for predatory conduct under this 

Court’s decision in People v Cannon, supra. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

l0917 

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 24, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004088EN.01043301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/433 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/433

---

(2004/C 88 E/0438)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Inquiry into the kidnapping of Peter Shaw

Subject:

Would the Commission give a clear and detailed account of any progress made by the Georgian authorities in the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the kidnapping of Peter Shaw?

Does the Commission deem it unacceptable that so little information is available and that Peter Shaw has every right to expect that a full and comprehensive inquiry will be carried out?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2003)

(3 October 2003)

Ever since Peter Shaw regained his freedom in November 2002, the Commission has used every opportunity to stress to the Georgian Government the importance it attaches to bringing his kidnappers to justice. The Commission considers this to be an important signal of efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Georgia. The forthcoming EU-Georgia Cooperation Council will provide a further occasion to discuss the state of the investigations.

The Commission, through its Delegation and in cooperation with the British Embassy in Georgia, has regularly sought information from the Prosecutor General of Georgia on progress in the investigation. The Prosecutor General has recently informed the Commission that the case is still being investigated. Individuals involved in the kidnapping of Mr Shaw have been identified but more evidence is needed before they can be arrested and brought to court. Mr Chichiashvili, a Georgian national, wanted in Georgia in connection with several kidnappings, including that of Mr Shaw, has been arrested in Moscow.

The Commission deeply regrets that, almost one year after Mr Shaw regained his freedom, the perpetrators of his kidnapping have not been brought to justice and that the suspect arrested in Moscow has yet to be extradited.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion that more information should be made available and has asked the Georgian authorities for a detailed written report on the state of the investigations. The Commission remains determined to do all that it can to pursue this case.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,097,804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  673,484
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,886,853
<PP&E>                                      12,549,256
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,509,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,172,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,382,171
<BONDS>                                     12,770,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,764
<OTHER-SE>                                   (300,524)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,172,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,577,164
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,309,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,026,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,849
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,509
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009256EN.01002301.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Holland Malt v Commission

(Case T-369/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Malt production - Investment aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Adverse effect on competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector)

2009/C 256/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Holland Malt BV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented initially by: O. Brouwer and D. Mes, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and P. Schepens, lawyers)

Applicant:

(

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Grave, C. ten Dam and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/59/EC of 26 September 2006 concerning the State aid granted by the Netherlands to Holland Malt BV (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 76).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Holland Malt BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holland Malt BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
In the Matter of: P.E.P.

No. COA16-156

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 19, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-11731

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-01280 CV-J-12-MCR

NEW HAMPSHIRE INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee,

versus

DONNA REID, as Personal Representative

of the Estate of Jonathan Merlino, deceased,

HELEN KEARNS, as Personal Representative of

the Estate of Eric Scott Kearns, deceased,

Defendants-CounterClaimants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 19, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the

judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We have carefully reviewed

the relevant Florida case law, and have compared the instant facts against the facts

in those cases. We conclude that a reasonable jury would have to conclude under

the facts of this case, and in light of the Florida case law, that Anderson, Jr. had

moved out of his parents’ home and was living apart in the duplex. The fact that

he was receiving some financial support from his parents is not alone sufficient to

make him a member of the family under the policy and the case law.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P.**

 

**Certification of James Mead, Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of the Registrant, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

 

I, James Mead, Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L. P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1)         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| Dated:  May 13, 2011 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      | By     | /s/   James Mead |
|                      |   | James   Mead |
|                      |   | Treasurer   of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of the Registrant |

 

1

----
Melynda Ann King WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Charles Butch WILSON, Defendant.

No. COA15-538.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2009019EN.01002502.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — En Route International v OHIM (FRESHHH)

(Case T-147/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark FRESHHH as a Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 19/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: En Route International Ltd (Datchet, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2006 (Case R 352/2005-4) concerning registration of the word sign FRESHHH as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | En Route International Ltd is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

En Route International Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7. 2006.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3843 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3843

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
 discharges of Federal student loans as a result of veterans' service-
        connected total disability that is permanent in nature.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
 discharges of Federal student loans as a result of veterans' service-
        connected total disability that is permanent in nature.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Tax Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR DISCHARGE OF FEDERAL STUDENT 
              LOANS OF VETERANS AS A RESULT OF PERMANENT SERVICE-
              CONNECTED TOTAL DISABILITY.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 108(f) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or if such discharge 
resulted from an individual having a service-connected total disability 
that is permanent in nature as determined by the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 676 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.676

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American Development 
     Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American 
   Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the Inter-
                          American Foundation.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO APPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR ALTERNATE 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK TO THE BOARD 
OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION.
    The third sentence of section 401(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1969 (22 U.S.C. 290f(g)) is amended to read as follows: ``Three 
members of the Board shall be appointed from among the following: 
officers or employees of agencies of the United States concerned with 
inter-American affairs, the United States Executive Director of the 
Inter-American Development Bank, or the Alternate Executive Director of 
the Inter-American Development Bank.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 14, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1141

Lower Tribunal No. 20-25168

________________

Publix Super Markets, Inc.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Ariane Gutierrez, etc.,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.

Bleakley Bavol Denman & Grace, and Robert J. Grace, Jr., Grant W. 

Kindrick, and Victoria M. McLaughlin (Tampa); Shutts & Bowen LLP, and 

Jason Gonzalez and Amber S. Nunnally (Tallahassee); Wicker, Smith, 

O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Jason A. Glusman and William Bromley 

(Fort Lauderdale); Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Elise M. Engle (Tampa); Shutts 

& Bowen LLP, and Julissa Rodriguez, for petitioner.

Stewart Tilghman Fox Bianchi & Cain, P.A., and Michael Levine and 

A. Dax Bello, for respondent.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LOBREE, JJ.
2

PER CURIAM. 

Dismissed. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 277 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2019) (“To grant certiorari relief, there must be: ‘(1) a material injury 

in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred 

to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements 

of the law.’” (quoting Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 

87 So. 3d 712, 721 (Fla. 2012))).
# C_2009282EN.01000502.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-562/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Natural persons - Taxation of capital gains - Difference in treatment of residents and non residents)

2009/C 282/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 39 EC and 56 EC and of Articles 28 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment, with regard to the taxation of income received in Spain, between residents and non-residents

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by treating differently, until 31 December 2006, capital gains realised in Spain according to whether they were made by residents or by non-residents, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by treating differently, until 31 December 2006, capital gains realised in Spain according to whether they were made by residents or by non-residents, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
Triando M. STROUD, Plaintiff v. PATE DAWSON, INC., Defendant.

No. COA15-1066.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
State v. Alonzo Antonio Murrell

233P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 22, 2016

James W. Carter, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorneys at Law, Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Murrell, Alonzo Antonio.

Oliver G. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of June 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of June 2016."
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
33-92224  of Mid  Continent  Bancshares,  Inc.  on Form S-8 of our report  dated
November 14, 1997,  (which  contains an emphasis  paragraph  indicating that the
Company  entered  into  an  agreement  to  be  acquired  by  another   financial
institution),  appearing in and  incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Mid Continent Bancshares,  Inc. for the year ended September 30,
1997.




Kansas City, Missouri
December 23, 1997
Maurice A. BURRIS v. THOMAS, Commissioner of DMV-16P16-1.

No. 16P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 20, 2016.

Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, for Thomas, Kelly J.

*470Jennifer M. Chandler, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Burris, Maurice.

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

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of January 2016."
STATE v. Jonathon Lavon FRIEND.

No. 345P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Jonathon Lavon Friend, Salisbury, for Friend, Jonathan Lavon.

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

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of October 2015 by Defendant for Writ of Error:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
**Exhibit 10.2**

**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This **AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** (“Amendment”) is entered into this 21st day ofFebruary 2007, by and between **PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES** (“Company”) and **RANDALL E. REYNOSO** (“Employee”). 

**WHEREAS,** Employee and Company entered into an Employment Agreement, dated January 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 5 of the Agreement sets forth Company’s potential obligations upon the termination of Employee’s employment with Company; and 

**WHEREAS**, Employee and Company have agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment in order to provide for payments to be made incompliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and guidance thereunder, which section was added to the Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004; and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 22 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the parties. 

**NOW THEREFORE,**Employee and Company agree as follows: 

1. A new Subsection (h) entitled “Timing of Payment” is added to Section 5 of the Agreement, to read as set forth below: 

(h) **Timing of Payment**. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if any amount payable hereunder is considered to becompensation deferred under a “nonqualified deferred compensation plan” as defined for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”), and if Employee is deemed to be a“specified employee” as defined for purposes of Section 409A, then, to the extent necessary to comply with Section 409A, any such amounts due under this Agreement in connection with a termination of Employee’s employmentthat otherwise would be payable at any time during the six-month period immediately following such termination of employment shall not be paid prior to, and shall instead be payable in a lump sum as soon as practicable following, the expiration ofsuch six-month period. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the application of Section 409A, Company makes no guarantee as to the income tax treatment under Section 409A of any payments made or benefits provided under this Agreement.

 

1 

2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 
**PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES**  
By: /s/ Frank J.Mercardante                                        
  /s/ Randall E.Reynoso                                        
      Frank J. Mercardante

      Chief Executive Officer
  **RANDALL E. REYNOSO**
 

2