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

March 31, 2010 

p0324 

Order 

 

March 31, 2010 

140133 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140133 

 COA: 286664 

Genesee CC: 07-020780-FH 

DWAYNE EDWARD JUDE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2009 

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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136983 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

GARY L. BUSH, Guardian of GARY E. BUSH, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. a Protected Person, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136983 

 COA: 274726 
 Kent CC: 06-000982-NM 

BEHROOZ-BRUCE SHABAHANG, M.D.,

JOHN CHARLES HEISER, M.D., WEST 

MICHIGAN CARDIOVASCULAR SURGEONS,

GEORGE T. SUGIYAMA, M.D., M. ASHRAF 

MANSOUR, M.D., and VASCULAR 

ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Defendants, 

and 

SPECTRUM HEALTH BUTTERWORTH 

CAMPUS,
 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on November 19, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., on whether to grant the application or take 

other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address 

whether that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the direct liability 

claims against defendants West Michigan Cardiovascular Surgeons and Spectrum Health 

Butterworth Campus should be dismissed without prejudice is inconsistent with this 

Court’s decision in Boodt v Borgess Medical Center, 481 Mich 558, 563-564 (2008). 

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

with the cases of Bush v Shabahang, Docket Nos. 136617 and 136653. The parties may 

file supplemental briefs no later than November 12, 2008. They should not submit mere 

restatements of their application papers. 

d1014 

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. 

October 17, 2008 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1166

WILSON LOBE ESEME,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 8, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Silver Spring,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant

Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Kristina R.

Sracic, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Wilson Lobe Eseme, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s order finding him removable and denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have reviewed the administrative record, the

immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof,

and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that Eseme

failed to establish a nexus between the past persecution he

sustained and his political opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)

(2008) (stating that burden of proof is on alien to establish

eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483

(1992) (same). Such a causal nexus is required to support the

grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006); Abdel-Rahman v.

Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444, 450-51 (4th Cir. 2007); Saldarriaga v.

Gonzales, 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir. 2005). 

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Eseme’s request for

withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the

facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
- 3 -

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Eseme fails to show that he

is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal. 

Finally, we affirm the denial of Eseme’s request for

protection under the CAT. Our review of the record leads us to

conclude that Eseme’s evidence did not establish that it is more

likely than not that he would be subjected to torture at the hands

of government agents or with their acquiescence if he were to

return to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008) (to

establish eligibility for CAT protection, the applicant must show

that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured

if removed to the proposed country of removal”). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the

reasons stated by the Board. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
**Section 906 CEO Certification**

**** 

**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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Monahan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

        

  

David Monahan

Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: August 9, 2011        

 

 

 

- 30 -

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, F. Duffield Meyercord,certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10–Q of NES Rentals Holdings, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e) and 15d–15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented within thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)  disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlsover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)  all significant deficiencies in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information and have identified for the registrant’sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 17, 2004        |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
| /s/ F. DUFFIELD MEYERCORD       |   |
|                            |
| F. Duffield Meyercord           |
| Interim Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
RJF-EX10.16.3_2013.03.31-10Q








EXHIBIT 10.16.3


[Fifth Third Bank Logo]




March 22, 2013
Raymond James Financial, Inc.
880 Carillon Parkway
Saint Petersburg, FL 33716
Attention: Treasury Department/Cash Management
Re:     Uncommitted Line of Credit Agreement - Extension of Termination Date
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Reference is hereby made to that certain Uncommitted Line of Credit Agreement between Raymond James Financial, Inc. (the “Borrower”) and Fifth Third Bank (the “Lender”), dated as of September 27, 2011 (as the same has been and may further be amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”).  Reference is hereby also made to that certain Demand Note of the Borrower dated as of September 27, 2011 (as the same has been may further be amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the  “Note” and together with the Credit Agreement and all related documents, collectively referred to herein as the “Loan Documents”).  
The Borrower has requested that the Lender extend the Termination Date under, and as defined in, the Credit Agreement, and the Lender is willing to do so under the terms and conditions set forth in this letter agreement.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Loan Documents to the contrary, by signing below, the Lender and the Borrower agree to delete the date “September 25, 2013” in Section 1 of the Credit Agreement and replace such date with the following date: “March 22, 2014”.  Except as expressly modified hereby, the Loan Documents shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with their original terms.

121






This letter shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York (including Section 5-1401 of the General Obligations Law of New York), without regard to conflicts of laws principles that would require application of another law.  This letter may be executed in counterparts and by different parties hereto on separate counterpart signature pages, each of which shall be an original, but all together to be one and the same instrument.  Delivery of executed counterparts of this letter by telecopy or by e-mail transmission of an Adobe portable document format file (also known as a “PDF” file) shall be effective as originals.




Very truly yours,
Fifth Third Bank, an Ohio banking corporation
		
	By
	:  /s/ Alicia Mattice                


Name:  Alicia Mattice
Title:  Vice President






































































[Signature Page to Letter Agreement]



122






Raymond James Financial, Inc.
March 22, 2013






Acknowledged and agreed.
Raymond James Financial, Inc.
		
	By
	:  /s/ Paul Reilly                


Name: Paul Reilly
Title:   Chief Executive Officer








































[Signature Page to Letter Agreement]



123
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| March 4, 2008                                           |   |
STATE of North Carolina v. Jimmy Lee GANN, Defendant.

No. COA15-1344-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

VACATED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART, NO ERROR IN PART, and REMANDED IN PART FOR RESENTENCING.
STATE of North Carolina v. Justin Kyle MILLS

No. 286P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

William D. Spence, Attorney at Law, Kinston, for Mills, Justin Kyle.

Roberta A. Ouellette, Assistant Attorney General, Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of August 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 22nd of September 2016."
EX-10.1.26



 Exhibit 10.1.26 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 NUMBER 21078 

This Amendment (the “Amendment) is made as of the date of the last signature hereto (the “Effective Date”) by and between
Intelsat Corporation (“Intelsat”), a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with offices located at 3400 International Drive, Washington, DC 20008 and Gogo LLC (“Customer”), a company incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, with offices located at 1250 N. Arlington Heights Road, Suite 500, Itasca, IL 60143 (each individually referred to as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”). 

WHEREAS, Intelsat and Customer executed a Master Services Agreement dated April 25, 2008 (the “Agreement”) for the
provision of Intelsat services; and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the Terms and Conditions to the Agreement as described below: 

 

	 	1.	Section 3.1, Customer’s Use and Third Party Use. This Section shall be deleted and replaced with the following: 


“Each Service is provided for Customer’s own use or the use of an Affiliate of Customer. In no event shall Customer be permitted
to resell a Service to any other person or entity unless Customer’s provision of services to such person or entity includes substantially more communications facilities than the Service provide by Intelsat. For purposes of this Section,
(a) “Affiliate” shall be deemed to include any entity in which there is at least fifty-one percent (51%) common equity ownership directly or indirectly by or with Customer; and (b) “resell” shall include any means
allowing another person or entity to utilize the Service, in whole or in part, including through sale, resale, license, lease sublease, grant assignment, or any other means of direct or indirect conveyance. Without limiting the foregoing, Customer
shall be responsible to Intelsat for any and all use of the Service or transmissions via the Service by any third party user throughout the chain of use (each a “User” and collectively the “Users”) to the same extent as Customer
would be for its own use or transmissions, and all references in the Agreement to Customer’s responsibilities to Intelsat regarding Customer’s use or transmissions shall be interpreted accordingly.” 

 

	 	2.	Except as modified herein, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaffected. 


 

									
	INTELSAT CORPORATION	 		 	GOGO LLC
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Patricia Casey
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Saumil Mehta

					
	Name:	 	 Patricia Casey
	 		 	Name:	 	 Saumil Mehta

					
	Title:	 	 Sr. VP & DGC
	 		 	Title:	 	 VP & Asst. General Counsel

					
	Date:	 	 11/14/12
	 		 	Date:	 	 November 8, 2012