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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 24, 2009

s0217 

# Order

February 24, 2009

137726 & (50)

CREDIGY RECEIVABLES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137726 COA: 280027 Oakland CC: 2007-008597-AV ROBERT F. TOWNSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application for leave to a ppeal the October 16, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DE NIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 10.16b**

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 2 to**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (the“Amendment”), effective as of June 16, 2000, by and between PSS World Medical, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), and Edward D. Dienes (“Executive”), amends that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of April1, 1998, by and between the Company and Executive, as heretofore amended (the “Employment Agreement”). 

 

Executive is based in New Orleans, Louisiana. The parties desire to clarify his Employment Agreement to reflect this location as it affects the definitionof “Good Reason” in the Employment Agreement. 

 

Therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

1. Definition of Good Reason. The term “Good Reason” is defined in Section 7(c) of the Employment Agreement. Such definition is herebyamended by deleting clause (iii) thereof in its entirety and substituting therefor the following: 

 

“(iii) after the occurrence of a Change of Control, the Company’s requiring Executive to be based at any office or locationother than in the city in which he was based on the date of the Change in Control or the Company’s requiring Executive to travel on Company business to a substantially greater extent than required immediately prior to the Effective Date;”

 

2. As amended hereby, the Employment Agreement, as heretoforeamended, shall be and remain in full force and effect. 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first above written.
STATE of North Carolina v. Earl Wayne FLOWERS

No. 103P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 2017

*703Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Earl Wayne Flowers, for Flowers, Earl Wayne.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 30th of March 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Alexander County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of April 2017."
<PAGE>



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-98474 and 333-55835 of Owosso Corporation on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement 33-99526 of Owosso Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated
December 13, 2002, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to Owosso Corporation's ability to continue as
a going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Owosso
Corporation for the year ended October 27, 2002.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-----------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
January 24, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1098 

KA 09-01279 

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VERNON L. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

VERNON L. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MATTHEW DUNHAM OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A.

Keenan, J.), rendered May 21, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §

140.25 [2]). County Court properly denied defendant’s request to

charge criminal trespass in the second degree (§ 140.15 [1]) as a

lesser included offense of burglary in the second degree because

“[t]here is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant entered

the building without the intent to commit a crime therein” (People v

Smith, 12 AD3d 1106, 1107, lv denied 4 NY3d 767; see People v Rickett,

94 NY2d 929, 930). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the

elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson,

9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is

against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,

69 NY2d 490, 495). To the contrary, “[t]he overwhelming weight of the

evidence supports the [verdict convicting defendant] of burglary in

the second degree” (People v Moore, 190 AD2d 1023, 1023, lv denied 81

NY2d 1077). We have considered defendant’s contentions in his pro se

supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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 Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |        |  |                                  
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                   |  |        |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley               
|                   |  | Name:  |  | J. Roe Buckley                   
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer          
|                   |  |        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
EXHIBIT 99.9






CONSENT OF EXPERT
 
 I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, Andrew Sharp, FAusIMM and reports, NI43-101 Technical Report on the Pirquitas Mine, Jujuy Province, Argentina  dated December 23, 2011 and NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Pitarrilla Project, Durango State, Mexico dated effective December 14, 2012 (the “Reports”), and the information contained in my Reports, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Dated this 15th day of March, 2013.
 
 
 Very truly yours,
 
 
 /s/ Andrew Sharp
 Andrew Sharp, FAusIMM






CONSENT OF EXPERT
 
 I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name, Trevor Yeomans, P. Eng., ACSM and reports, NI43-101 Technical Report on the Pirquitas Mine, Jujuy Province, Argentina  dated December 23, 2011 and NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Pitarrilla Project, Durango State, Mexico” dated effective December 14, 2012 (the “Reports”), and the information contained in my Reports, as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, and (ii) Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-185498), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Dated this 5th day of March, 2013.
 
 
 Very truly yours,
 
 
 /s/ Trevor Yeomans
 Trevor Yeomans, P. Eng., ACSM
# Official Journal C 99/26 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 99 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4926 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 99

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4926 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2006/C 099/1 | Special report No 1/2006 on the contribution of the European Social Fund in combating early school leaving, together with the Commission's replies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Auditors

2006/C 099/1

Special report No 1/2006 on the contribution of the European Social Fund in combating early school leaving, together with the Commission's replies

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2017

Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

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 14th of March 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Commission File Numbers 333-35918 and 333-47438) of our
report dated March 11, 2003 except for Note 8 for which the date is March 26,
2003 on the financial statements for the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2002, which appear in the Form 10-K.



/s/ Wiss & Company, LLP
-------------------------------

Wiss & Company, LLP
Livingston, New Jersey
March 11, 2003
# C_2008301EN.01003201.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Sogelma v EAR

(Case T-411/06) (1)

1

(Public works contracts - Tender procedure of the European Agency for Reconstruction - Decision to cancel tender procedure and to publish a new procedure - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Necessity of a prior administrative complaint - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Instructions to act as agent - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Application for damages)

(2008/C 301/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sogelma — Societá generale lavori manutenzioni appalti Srl (Scandicci, Italy) (represented by: E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini, A. Bandini and A. Gironi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: initially by O. Kalha, subsequently by M. Dischendorfer and then by R. Lundgren, Agent and by S. Bariatti and F. Scanzano, lawyers)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and L. Prete, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of decisions of the EAR relating to cancellation of the tender procedure for the public works contract reference EuropeAid/120694/D/W/YU and organisation of a new tender procedure, and an application for compensation for loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sogelma — Societá generale lavori manutenzioni appalti Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Agency for Reconstruction; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sogelma — Societá generale lavori manutenzioni appalti Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Agency for Reconstruction;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GENERAL MEDIA, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                State or Jurisdiction
                                                                                of Incorporation or
                                                                                Organization
Name                                                                            ---------------
----
<S>                                                                             <C>
1.  General Media Communications, Inc.                                          Delaware
2.  General Media (UK), Ltd.                                                    United Kingdom
3.  Penthouse Clubs International Establishment                                 Liechtenstein
4.  Penthouse Images Acquisition, Ltd.                                          New York
5.  Pure Entertainment Telecommunications, Inc.                                 New York
6.  General Media Entertainment, Inc.                                           New York
7.  Penthouse Financial Services N.V.                                           Netherlands Antilles
8.  General Media Art Holding, Inc.                                             Delaware
9.  GMCI Internet Operations, Inc.                                              New York
10. GMI On-Line Ventures, Ltd.                                                  Delaware
</TABLE>
CAROLINA CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. PRAYER & DELIVERANCE MINISTRIES, INC., and Roger L. Green, an individual, and Connie C. Green, an individual, Defendants.

No. COA15-717.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
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

November 20, 2012

s1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145535 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145535

COA: 308208

Wayne CC: 90-003517

TEDDY EUGENE MCKENZIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4449 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4449

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to expand the 
  training for Federal Government personnel related to trafficking in 
                    persons, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Human Trafficking Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANDED TRAINING RELATING TO TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.

    Section 105(c)(4) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 
(22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, including members of the Service (as 
        such term is defined in section 103 of the Foreign Service Act 
        of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3903))'' after ``Department of State''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Training under 
        this paragraph shall include, at a minimum, the following:
                    ``(A) A distance learning course on trafficking-in-
                persons issues and the Department of State's 
                obligations under this Act, targeted for embassy 
                reporting officers, regional bureaus' trafficking-in-
                persons coordinators, and their superiors.
                    ``(B) Specific trafficking-in-persons briefings for 
                all ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission before 
                such individuals depart for their posts.
                    ``(C) At least annual reminders to all such 
                personnel, including appropriate personnel from other 
                Federal departments and agencies, at each diplomatic or 
                consular post of the Department of State located 
                outside the United States of key problems, threats, 
                methods, and warning signs of trafficking in persons 
                specific to the country or jurisdiction in which each 
                such post is located, and appropriate procedures to 
                report information that any such personnel may acquire 
                about possible cases of trafficking in persons.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL STEVEN WRIGHT,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 10062

D.C. No.

1:15

- cr

- 00171

- DKW

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Michael Wright appeals the district court’s sentence following his guilty

plea for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we

affirm.

1

. The record does not support Wright’s argument that the district court

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUN 29 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CL ERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

plainly err ed by holding him respons ible for the c onduct of another. Wright

personally possessed with intent to distribute the package containing

methamphetamine, and therefore the distric t court’s use of methamphetamine to set

Wright’s guideline range merely held him responsible for his own conduct. See

U.S.S.G

. § 1B1

. 3 ( a ) (1) (defining scope of relevant conduct for which a defendant

may be held responsible); see also United States v. Salazar

, 5 F.3d 445, 446 (9th

Cir. 1993) (finding a defendant who helped to import drugs personally responsible

for the type and quantity of drugs actually imported , even when he claimed that he

had been misled as to drug type )

.

2

. The district court correctly us ed methamphetamine (instead of

marijuana) to calculate Wright’s sentencing guideline range , despite the fact that

Wright thought the package contained marijuana . Unlike drug type and quantity, a

defendant’s knowledge of drug type and quantity is not a fact that must be admitted

or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Jefferson , 791 F.3d 1013,

1019 (9th Cir. 2015) ; s ee also United States v. Soto

- Zuniga

, 837 F.3d 992, 10 04

–

05 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED

.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Anthony BARNETT, Jr.

No. 36P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Brendan O'Donnell, for Barnett, James Anthony (Jr.).

Jennifer Harjo, Wilmington, for Barnett, James Anthony (Jr.).

Iain M. Stauffer, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Craig Blitzer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 5th of February 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was *468entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2016 by State of NC 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

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).
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3050 JUAN R. CABRERA,

Petitioner,
v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in SF0752080122-I-1. ON MOTION 

### ORDER Upon consideration of the United States Postal Service's motion for an extension of time, until March 18, 2009, to file its brief, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

# MAR 1 1 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk US RILED PEA
. eOURT OF APLS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MAR 1 1 2009
1404 iiUROALI CLERK Date

cc: Juan R. Cabrera Morgan E. Rehrig, Esq. s8