alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
September 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice Rehearing No. 540 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly

130802-03 Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR WATER CONSERVATION, R. J. DOYLE, BARBARA DOYLE, JEFFREY R. SAPP and SHELLY M. SAPP, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees,

v SC: 130802-3

NESTLÉ WATERS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, and COA: 254202; 256153 Mecosta CC: 01-014563-CE

DONALD PATRICK BO LLMAN and NANCY GALE BOLLMAN, a/k/a PAT BOLLMAN ENTERPRISES, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

In this cause, a motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant rehearing.

W EAVER , J., dissents and states as follows:

I would grant plainti ffs’ motion for reconsidera tion and reverse the holding 1 of the majority of four (Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman) that plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a claim under the Michigan environmental

1 Michigan Citizens fo r W ater Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc , 479 Mich ___ (2007)._______________________________________ __ 2

protection act 2 with respect to the Os prey Lake Impoundment a nd wetlands 112, 115, and 301.

Further, I would grant pl aintiffs’ motion for reconside ration to consider whether the majority of four’s holding violated plaintiffs’ right “t o petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” a right guaranteed by the First Ame ndment of the United States Constitution. 3 The importance of this issue stems not only from th e instant case, but also from various other holdings by the same majority denying c itizens protection of the laws and access to the Mich igan court system, even when legal rights may have been violated. See Kreiner v Fischer , 471 Mich 109 (2004) (reducing no-fault insurance rights); Maldonado v Ford Motor Co , 476 Mich 372 (2006) (p reventing trial by jury); Bierlein v Schneider , 478 Mich 893 (2007) (prev enting an injured child from utilizing an existing Michigan court rule to collect a settlement); and Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co , 479 Mich ___ (2007) (eliminating the common-law discovery rule, thereby depriving a plaintiff of an op portunity to file a good-faith claim and of access to courts).

2 MCL 324.1701 et seq

.

3 US Const, Am I forbids Congress, in pertinent part, from passing laws abridging “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition th e Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment applie s to the states thro ugh the Fourteenth Amendment. Mills v Alabama , 384 US 214, 218 (1966).

t0925 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.
September 28, 2007
Clerk
**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 StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Mark L. Kay, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by StrikeForce Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




*/s/
      Mark L. Kay*


*Mark
      L. Kay*


*Chief
      Executive Officer*




*May21,
      2007*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6522 MICHEAL LEE SPENCER, SR., a/k/a Micheal Spencer, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-166-AM) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Micheal Lee Spencer, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 Although the district relied upon Green v. French , 143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 523 U.S. 1090 (1999), in its initial denial of Spencer’s § 2254 petition, the denial of relief was also correct under the standards announced in Williams v. Taylor , U.S. , 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000). 2 Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on March 17, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on March 20, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Lee Spencer, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. 1 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Spencer v. Robinson , No. CA99-166-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2000). 2 We deny Spencer’s motions for appointment of counsel and for appropriate relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### James Earl BREWSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Upendra KATRAGADDA; et al., Defendants, Upendra Katragadda; Debra Green; Arusha Jones; C. Stepner; Janie Cockrell, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-41297.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

James Earl Brewster, Angleton, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Earl Brewster, Texas prisoner # 664663, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division officials. He argues that the defendants failed to protect him from being attacked by a fellow inmate. Brewster has not shown that the officials ignored his request to be moved, nor has he shown that the officials perceived the alleged threat as posing a substantial risk of serious harm. Accordingly, Brewster has failed to show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); *Velasquez v. Woods,*329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir.2003).

Brewster’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal by the district court and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). Brewster is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION 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>                          OCT-31-1997<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,800
<SECURITIES>                                   122,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,240,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (12,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          11,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,782,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,067,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,782,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10178 and # 10179] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1604-DR), dated August 29, 2005. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Katrina.                     

*Incident Period:*                         August 29, 2005 and continuing through October 14, 2005.                     

*Effective Date:*                         October 14, 2005.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         October 28, 2005.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         May 29, 2006.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi, dated August 29, 2005, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning August 29, 2005, and continuing through October 14, 2005. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-21447 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5219 

To withdraw certain land located in Clark County, Nevada, from location, 

entry, and patent under the mining laws and disposition under all laws 

pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2010 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Ms. TITUS, and Ms. BERKLEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To withdraw certain land located in Clark County, Nevada, 

from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws 

and disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 

geothermal leasing or mineral materials, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sloan Hills Withdrawal 

5 Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5219 IH

1 SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF SLOAN HILLS AREA OF CLARK 

2 COUNTY, NEVADA. 

3 (a) DEFINITION OF FEDERAL LAND.—In this sec4 tion, the term ‘‘Federal land’’ means the land identified 

5 as the ‘‘Withdrawal Zone’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Sloan 

6 Hills Area’’ and dated May 5, 2010. 

7 (b) WITHDRAWAL.—Subject to valid rights in exist8 ence on the date of introduction of this Act, the Federal 

9 land is withdrawn from all forms of— 

10 (1) location, entry, and patent under the mining 

11 laws; and 

12 (2) disposition under all laws pertaining to min13 eral and geothermal leasing or mineral materials. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.17(f)


February 20, 1997


Ronald G. Evens, M.D.
The Edward Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology
516 S. Kingshighway
St. Louis, MO 63110

Dear Dr. Evens:

A letter of agreement dated December 22, 1986, and renewal letters
dated November 29, 1989, February 19, 1991, January 16, 1992,
December 17, 1992, January 7, 1994, February 1, 1995 and January 10,
1996, between you and Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. set forth the
general terms and conditions under which you agree to serve
Mallinckrodt in a consulting capacity for the period beginning
January 1, 1987, and ending December 31, 1996.

Mallinckrodt Inc. desires to retain your consulting services through
the period beginning January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 1997,
under the same terms and conditions as set forth in said letter
agreement dated December 22, 1986, and renewal letters dated November
29, 1989 and February 19, 1991.

If the foregoing meets with your understanding and approval, please
execute this letter in duplicate at the place indicated below and
return one of the signed duplicates to us thereby indicating your
agreement to continue to serve Mallinckrodt Inc. as a consultant for
the above-stated period.

Very truly yours,                         ACCEPTED & AGREED TO:

MALLINCKRODT INC.                         RONALD G. EVENS, M.D.



By:__________________________             _________________________

Title: Vice President,                    Date:____________________
       Science & Technology
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 11, 2008

Ms. Enid Allyn Patterson Wade

Naman Howell Smith & Lee, L.L.P.

P.O. Box 1470

Waco, TX 76703-1470

Mr. R. John Cullar

Cullar & McLeod LLP

801 Washington, Suite 217

Waco, TX 76701-1250

RE:Case Number:  06-0089

Court of Appeals Number:  10-04-00085-CV

Trial Court Number:  26,431-B

Style:CITY OF WACO, TEXAS

v.

ROBERT LOPEZ

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0089Page 1**
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robert S. Prather, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bull Run Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing 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 affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 8, 2005 By:  /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.   Name:  Robert S. Prather, Jr.   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 1, 2017

No. 04-15-00333-CR

Mario Ismael GUTIERREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR4433

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice 

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On April 13, 2016, this court affirmed appellant’s felony conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance. On June 29, 2016, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied appellant’s pro se 

petition for discretionary review. We issued mandate on July 29, 2016. On April 24, 2017, 

appellant filed a pro se request for “A De Novo Review of His Appeal in Habeas Corpus.”

If a trial court denies a petitioner’s post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, 

the courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review such a ruling. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN art. 

11.07, § 3(a) (West 2015); Ex parte Simpson, 260 S.W.3d 172, 174 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 

2008, pet. ref’d). In this case, there is no ruling by a trial court. To the extent appellant is asking 

for a ruling on an application for writ of habeas corpus, only the Court of Criminal Appeals 

possesses authority to grant relief in post-conviction habeas proceedings when, as here, there is a 

final felony conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5; Ex parte Simpson, 260 

S.W.3d at 174. 

For these reasons, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of appellant’s 

request, and the request is DENIED.
_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of May, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court