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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 134882 & (53) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134882 COA: 268812 Wayne CC: 05-010264-01 GERRY SHARROB HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
remand is DENIED.

d1217 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.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 10.22


 


 





    	 	1	 



     


    

 


 


 





    	 	2	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	3	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	4	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	5	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	6	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	7	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	8	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	9	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	10	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	11	 



     


    

 

 


 





    	 	12	 



     


    

 


 


 




    	 	13	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	14	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	15	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	16	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	17	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	18	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	19	 



     


    
 


 





    	 	20	 



     


    


 


 





    	 	21	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	22	 



     


    


 


 





    	 	23	 



     


    
 


 





    	 	24	 



     


    


 


 





    	 	25	 



     


    

 


  




    	 	26	 



     


    
 


 





    	 	27	 



     


    
 


 





    	 	28	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	29	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	30	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	31	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	32	 



     


    

 


 





    	 	33
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 13, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-20-00060-CR

IN RE ROY E. ADDICKS JUNIOR, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 801,835

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 23, 2020, relator Roy E. Addicks Junior1filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the presiding judge of 

the 183rd District Court of Harris County, to rule on various motions which relator 

alleges he has filed.

1 Our court previously affirmed relator’s conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of 

a child See Addicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd).
2

As the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court 

with a sufficient record to establish relator’s right to mandamus relief. See Lizcano 

v. Chatham, 416 S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) 

(Alcala, J. concurring); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (petition must contain “a certified 

or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the 

matter complained of”); and Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with 

petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). “Those 

seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable 

procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the 

reviewing court with a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 

813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). While we agree 

with relator that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 allows us to suspend some of 

the requirements of Rule 52 upon a showing of good cause, relator has not 

provided this court with any record, much less one showing that he is entitled to 

mandamus relief.

Additionally, Judge Vanessa Velasquez is no longer the presiding judge of 

the court in which relator was convicted; therefore, even if we had received the 

record, we would be required to abate this proceeding for a response from the 

current sitting judge. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b).

We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH HOUSTON 

PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER,

Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0837

Issued: July 5, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On May 28, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a May 31, 2022 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0837.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the May 31, 2022 decision was November 27, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until May 28, 2023, more than 180 days after the

May 31, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0837 is 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0837, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0837 is dismissed.

Issued: July 5, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
#### Willis E. MEYER, Plaintiff, v. Louis M. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 89-1288-T.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Aug. 14, 1990.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THEIS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Secretary’s motion to remand (Doc. 13). The Secretary argues that remand is necessary for further consideration of plaintiff’s claim. Specifically, the Secretary seeks remand to obtain the testimony of a vocational expert. The plaintiff has filed an opposition to the Secretary’s motion.

The Social Security Act provides:

> The court may, on motion of the Secretary made for good cause shown before he files his answer, remand the case to the Secretary for further action by the Secretary, and it may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding; ...

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Secretary’s motion to remand falls within the second category outlined in section 405(g). The court believes that remand for the consideration of the opinions of a vocational expert is proper.

IT IS BY THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERED that the Secretary’s motion to remand (Doc. 13) is hereby granted.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of D.T., a Child

No. 06

- 19

- 00064

- CV Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 85628 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chi ef

Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the ap pellant has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 13, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32





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 on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif , as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jason S. Bartylla , as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.










Date:August 5, 2019By:/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer


Date:August 5, 2019By:/s/ Jason S. BartyllaJason S. BartyllaChief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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 22, 2010 

d1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141607 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141607 

 COA: 291307 

Kent CC: 08-003732-FC 

THOMAS JAMES TILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32



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 LogSearch, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Durward, Principal Executive Officer, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: March 30, 2006

By:  /s/ James Durward

Name:  James Durward

Title:  President, CFO, Treasurer, Chief Accounting Officer                          and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
# JLont**fop? csj** **TO -CS1** **CO cr:** **cr.**

# z?°r**10 ijrrj** **(\ 2.-** *)**

# Bb**/< J°** **<ioprt4ji(3 21** **JV rv** **r>0**

## 0/i**SHV**

### Unu4**X.J*&*t)****vyj 0±** **t»ss }^s** **{Q it:** **FILED**

## T&L&~-**■'■'■ '"'■'** **2015 AUG** **21 K€!THE.H3U1** **'.CLERK CO** **to**

### 7s/**I;**
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary 

          - [Transmittal No. 06-17] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 06-17 with attached transmittal, policy justification, Sensitivity of Technology and Section 620C(d). 

Dated: October 27, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

      ( print page 66358)          ( print page 66359)          ( print page 66360)          ( print page 66361)          ( print page 66362)          ( print page 66363)          ( print page 66364)          ( print page 66365)          ( print page 66366)          ( print page 66367)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M 

[FR Doc. 05-21782 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
# C_2007282EN.01000901.xml

| 24.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4895 — Mol/Italiana Energia e Servizi)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 282/07)

On 30 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4895. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NEIL KURT SALAZAR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3717

[October 17, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Okeechobee County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 

472000CF000368A.

Neil Kurt Salazar, Malone, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARRY LEE DUNN

No. 7310SC70

(Filed 28 March 1973)

Robbery § 4— common law robbery — no error in trial

Defendant in a common law robbery case had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

*729Appeal by defendant from *Canaday, Judge,*10 July 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with common law robbery. The evidence for the State tended to show the following: On 7 May 1972, between ten and eleven o’clock p.m., defendant went into the Kwik-Pik store on the old Garner Road. He demanded of the cashier that she “[t]ake the money out of the cash register.” Defendant had one hand in his pocket and the cashier heard a “click.” She gave defendant the money because she was afraid and she thought she was protecting her life. The cashier had seen defendant before and identified him as the perpetrator of the robbery.

The jury found defendant guilty of common law robbery. He appealed.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Kramer, for the State.*

*Charles H. Yarborough, Jr., for the defendant.*

BROCK, Judge.

The trial court was properly organized and had jurisdiction of the defendant and the subject matter. The bill of indictment was proper in form. Defendant was duly arraigned upon the charge of common law robbery and entered a plea of not guilty. The evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury, the verdict of the jury was proper in form, and the judgment was correctly entered. The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum allowed by law.

In our opinion, defendant had a fair trial which was free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.
#### THOMAS WRENN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7703

July 9, 1975

537 P.2d 318

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Deputy State Public Defender, of Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, and *Robert A. Groves,*Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney General, of Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Thomas Wrenn was convicted of second-degree murder in July of 1971. The conviction was affirmed. Wrenn v. State, 89 Nev. 71, 506 P.2d 418 (1973).

On April 13, 1973, almost two years later, Wrenn sought post-conviction relief and later on August 16, 1973, moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This is an appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial.

In denying the motion for a new trial the trial court ruled that the so-called newly discovered evidence offered by the appellant was not material to Wrenn’s defense and was cumulative. We agree. The record satisfies this court that the trial court ruled properly. Oliver v. State, 85 Nev. 418, 456 P.2d 431 (1969).

Affirmed.
Order entered June 3, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 01088

- CR

THONG QUOC PHAM , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judici al District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 82314

- 2021

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant ’ s June 2, 2022 second motion for an exte nsion

of time to file his brief. We G RANT the motion and ORDER ap pellant ’ s brief due

by July 5, 2022.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit (99.3)

         Written Statement of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

       Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Interstate Power and
Light Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




/s/  Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
-------------------------
Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
August 9, 2002
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Scott D. Schweinfurth, Chief Financial Officer of WMS Industries Inc.,
certify that:

    1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of WMS Industries Inc.;

    2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
       statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
       to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
       such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
       covered by this annual report; and

    3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
       information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
       material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
       flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
       annual report.

Date: September 24, 2003

                                           /s/ SCOTT D. SCHWEINFURTH
                                       ----------------------------------
                                             Scott D. Schweinfurth
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50765.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Luis Sanchez-Sanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.