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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

April 25, 2011 

y0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142449 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142449 

 COA: 293879 

Wayne CC: 07-013928-FH 

ALBERT JAMES ISBY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2010 

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.
In the Matter of: D.L.W., D.L.N.W., V.A.W.

No. 252PA15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2016

Jeffrey William Gillette, Attorney at Law, For Wade, Marisha Nicole.

Jamie L. Hamlett, Attorney at Law, For Alamance County DSS.

Derrick J. Hensley, Attorney at Law, For D.L.W., et al.

Kathleen Arundell Jackson, Rachael J. Hawes, Attorneys at Law, For N.C. Association of Department of Social Services Attorneys.

Marisha Wade, Pro per.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent (Mother) on the 29th of June 2016 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 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 29th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of June 2016 by Respondent (Mother) to Stay the Mandate:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Corey Lopez JOHNSON

No. COA16-954

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN PART; DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         21,005
<SECURITIES>                                  107,811
<RECEIVABLES>                                 251,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (57,552)
<INVENTORY>                                10,912,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                      5,772,792
<DEPRECIATION>                            (2,119,776)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             19,223,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                    12,895,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    2,905,682
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,487,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               19,223,604
<SALES>                                     4,001,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4,299,633
<CGS>                                       2,992,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3,895,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             76,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               340,654
<INCOME-TAX>                                  146,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           194,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  194,654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
NO. 07-08-0420-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 21, 2008

	______________________________

	In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,

									Relator  

	_________________________________

	ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ., 

	Pending before this court is the application of Barry Dwayne Minnfee for a writ of mandamus.  He requests that we compel “[the] trial court to determine was [sic] indigent and if so appoint an attorney to represent [Minnfee] on this motion for forensic DNA testing,” among other things.  We deny the application for the following reason.

	Rules of procedure obligate one seeking mandamus relief to accompany his petition with an appendix.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).  The latter must include, among other things, a certified or sworn copy of the document showing the matter complained of.  In this case, the document showing the matter complained of would be the motion requesting DNA testing and the need for appointed counsel.  This Minnfee failed to do.  

	Accordingly, the application for writ of mandamus pending before this court is denied.

							Per Curiam
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael JOHNSON

No. COA16-1036

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR.
In re D.L.W., D.L.N.W., V.A.W.

No. 252PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

Jeffrey William Gillette, Franklin, for Wade, Marisha Nicole.

Jamie L. Hamlett, for Alamance County DSS.

Derrick J. Hensley, for D.L.W., et al.

Dammien Worth, for Worth, Dammien Lamar.

Kathleen Arundell Jackson, for N.C. Association of Department of Social Services Attorneys.

Rachael J. Hawes, for N.C. Association of Department of Social Services Attorneys.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Respondent (Mother):

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of January 2016."

Respondent (Mother) shall have up to and including the 25th day of January 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2017

Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2017 by State of NC for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of June 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
STATE of North Carolina v. Nathaniel Malone CHINA

No. 95A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 31, 2017

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for China, Nathaniel Malone.

*281Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 24th of March 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st of March 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     I, William R. Wolff, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of MakeMusic! Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin the annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperation and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: March 22, 2005 By: /s/ William R. Wolff   Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles CREWS

No. COA16-902

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 4, 2017

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kathryn H. Shields, for the State.

Winifred H. Dillon, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

BRYANT, Judge.

On appeal from his conviction in district court, defendant was found guilty by a jury of second-degree trespass, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-159.13 (2015). The trial court fined him $100.00 and ordered him to pay $372.50 in court costs. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant was unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel shows to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch* , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary to do so.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time for him to do so has expired. In accordance with *Anders* , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Judges DAVIS and ZACHARY concur.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4002 

AN ACT 

To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe 

of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4002 EH

1 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORA2 TION. 

3 The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to sur4 render the charter of incorporation issued to that tribe 

5 and ratified by its members on June 1, 1940, pursuant 

6 to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et seq.; com7 monly known as the ‘‘Oklahoma Welfare Act’’), is hereby 

8 accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby re9 voked. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4002 

AN ACT 

To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami 

and for other purposes. Tribe of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe,
WEX 2014.06.30 Exhibit 10.1


Exhibit 10.1
Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Double asterisks denote omissions.






        


WEX Inc. Special Incentive Plan


To:        George Hogan
From:        Melissa Smith
Date:        May 16, 2014
Re:        Special Incentive Plan


In recognition of the critical role you play in the achievement of the organizational goals for International and your new role as SVP, International, WEX Inc. will pay you the following special incentive based upon your satisfactory completion of the following deliverables:


		
	1.
	 Achievement of 2014 International Revenue target of $[**]




In addition to the deliverables above being met and approved by Melissa Smith, you must also have a “meets” or higher performance rating at the time of payout and not be under any written performance improvement plan.


Provided you are employed by WEX when achievement of the deliverable has been verified and approved, the following payouts will be made in addition to the ordinary compensation earned by you during the performance period or under any other Company incentive plan:   $50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) gross incentive. 


Note: All payouts dates are subject to revision and no payout shall be made before the associated deliverable is completed.


The Incentive shall be payable at the next regular pay period following satisfactory completion, verification and approval of the performance achievement.  If you voluntarily leave the company prematurely, or are terminated for poor performance or other cause prior to any of the above deliverable dates, you will not receive any pending Special Incentive payout as outlined.  If you are terminated involuntarily without cause and provided you have made satisfactory progress on the performance milestones and objectives at the time of your termination and provided further you execute a general release of claims against the Company, you shall be entitled to receive a prorated portion of the Special Incentive Plan ("Prorated Special Incentive").  The Prorated Special Incentive shall be equal to the number of days you worked on the project divided by the total number of days in this Period, times the Special Incentive payout specified above.   The Prorated Special Incentive shall be made at the next regular pay period.  If the objectives are not reached, no Special Incentive payout or Prorated Special Incentive shall be paid under this agreement.
 
This memorandum is not intended to create a contract of employment, and the Company reserves all rights with respect to the terms of your continued employment other than as expressly set forth in this memorandum.


Acknowledged and Agreed                 




/s/ Melissa D. Smith                /s/ George Hogan
Melissa D. Smith                    George Hogan





CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY, WEX Inc.
ActiveUS 132730555v.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection  with this Quarterly  Report of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending,  a November  30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Judy
Songer,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certifies to the best of her
knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2006,
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 such  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending November 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Sew Cal Logo, Inc.

Dated: January 12, 2007

                                      SEW CAL LOGO, INC.

                                      By: /s/ Judy Songer
                                          ------------------------------
                                      Chief Financial Officer,
* 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. 08-10046

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DON WHITLEY LIVELY, also known as Don Whitley Liveley

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-41-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don Whitley Lively appeals the 71-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the district court erred when it

enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(b)(6) and 3C1.2 because

both enhancements were based on the same conduct. 

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance arguing that

the appeal is barred by the appellate-waiver provision in Lively’s plea

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10046

2

agreement. Alternatively, the Government requests an extension of time in

which to file a brief on the merits. Lively has filed a response arguing that

because his appeal is based on the district court’s alleged violation of his

substantive and procedural due process rights, his appeal is not barred by the

appellate-waiver provision. 

Our review of the record shows that Lively’s appeal waiver was knowing

and voluntary and that, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the

waiver applies to the circumstances at hand. See United States v. Bond, 414

F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-47

(5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Lively’s appeal waiver bars review of the issue he

seeks to raise on appeal.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, the

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

Government’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at December 31, 1997
(unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,331
<SECURITIES>                                     7,849
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                       547
<INVENTORY>                                      2,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,167
<PP&E>                                          11,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,467
<SALES>                                         73,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,695
<CGS>                                           26,385
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,385
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,180
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,979
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.90


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           370,598
<SECURITIES>                                     100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,948,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                      76,324
<INVENTORY>                                      596,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,153,162
<PP&E>                                         3,075,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,041,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,231,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,065,052
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          26,415
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,929,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,231,331
<SALES>                                        9,659,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,659,861
<CGS>                                          5,056,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,056,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,828,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 562,786
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               131,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,128,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      51,159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,179,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,179,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.89)
        


</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: the ESTATE OF William GARNER

No. COA17-104

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.