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 October 26, 2009

1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139233

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139233 COA: 276424 Wayne CC: 06-008894-01 TERRANCE BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2007266EN.01000101.xml

| 8.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4838 — SLP/TPG V/Avaya)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 266/01)

On 26 September 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 32007M4838. 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 32007M4838. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 February 5, 2014

Order 

Clerk

February 5, 2014

148667 (3)

KIRK LABADIE, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 148667

AGC: 0327-13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $4.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$371.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), I, John Fanelli III, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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), as applicable 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.



/s/ John Fanelli IIIJohn Fanelli IIISenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: May 7, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JEFFERY AUSTIN MCNEFF, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00369) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 20, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angela Parrott, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.*Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jeffery Austin McNeff pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The district court determined that McNeff qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal and sentenced him to the statutory minimum 180 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed an Anders *brief, in which she states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the district court erred in sentencing McNeff as an armed career criminal. McNeff has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he repeats counsel’s assertion and raises other claims related to his conviction and sentence. We affirm. In considering whether the district court properly designated McNeff as an armed career criminal, this court reviews the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Wardrick , 350 F.3d 446, 451 (4th Cir. 2003). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that no error occurred in applying the armed career criminal statute in this case. United States v. Thompson , 421 F.3d 278, 284 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for- 3 - appeal. We have considered the arguments asserted in McNeff’s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm McNeff’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform McNeff, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McNeff requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McNeff. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED
#### DONNELL RICHARDS, Appellant, v. DENNIS B. CONKLIN, JOHN J. DAVIDS, and MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, a Partnership, and MICHAEL FRIEDMAN, DENNIS B. CONKLIN and JOHN J. DAVIDS, as Individuals, and PETER CHASE NEUMANN, Respondents.

No. 8753

March 2, 1978

575 P.2d 588

*85*Donnell Richards,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Wait, Shamberger, Georgeson & McQuaid,*Reno,. for Respondents.

OPINION*

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant commenced this action for libel after receiving certain letters impunging his professional competence and integrity. Respondents were granted summary judgment, pursuant to NRCP 56, and appellant contends this was error because, he argues, his complaint and affidavit raised genuine issues of material fact. We disagree.

By affidavit, respondents established that they had been retained by two clients formerly represented by appellant for the purpose of: (1) concluding a legal matter which appellant had left unresolved; and, (2) initiating a malpractice suit.

A review of the complaint and affidavit fails to support appellant’s contention. The instruments neither controvert nor refute respondents’ affidavit. Under these circumstances, we are not persuaded summary judgment was erroneous. Nevada Land & Mtge. v. Hidden Wells, 83 Nev. 501, 435 P.2d 198 (1967).

The record supports the district court’s determination that the letters in question were written to protect the interest of respondents’ clients in both a continuing and anticipated judicial proceeding and that the letters were, therefore, subject to both an absolute and qualified privilege. *See*Romero v. Prince, 513 P.2d 717, 719 (N.M.App. 1973); Restatement (Third) of Torts § 586 (1938). Accordingly, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

*

This case was disposed of by an unpublished order filed November 22, 1976. Because of the paucity of published authority on the issue we have been requested to publish the order as an opinion.
* Judge Wilkins did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7639

WILLIE FOSTER SELLERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH E. MELSON, 1st Assistant United States

Attorney; BARBARA WALKER, Assistant

Commonwealth Attorney; PAUL LANTEIGNE,

Sheriff; MARK MUSTIN, Chief Deputy; G. F.

DRISCOLL, Deputy Librarian,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-01-545-2)

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.*

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Willie Foster Sellers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Willie Foster Sellers appeals the district court’s orders

denying him relief in his action alleging violations under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Sellers v. Melson, No.

CA-01-545-2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2001; Sept. 23, 2002). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

I, Larry Dunmall, certifythat:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December31, 2004 of K-tel International, Inc.;

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

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: September 18, 2006
|   | /s/ Larry Dunmall        |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Larry Dunmall            |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 29, 2013

p0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146446

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146446

COA: 303746

Muskegon CC: 10

- 059247

- FC

DANIEL JAMES PARRISH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2012

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.
#### STATE v. GREENE

No. 54 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 731.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. Under Contract No. FA8526-l2-C-0039 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61760

Milton C. Johns, Esq. Rachel Leahey, Esq.

FH 

### +H, PLLC Tysons, VA Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

Air Force Deputy ChiefTrial Attorney Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq. Maj Ryan P. Payne, USAF

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL On August 21, 2018, appellant filed a notice ofappeal with the Board, which the Board docketed as ASBCA No. 61760. The notice stated that the appeal involved "a non-monetary dispute regarding contract interpretation ofa unilateral modification to the delivery schedule" and that it was filed in response to a purported contracting officer's final decision dated August 10, 2018. By Order dated December 6, 2018, the Board directed appellant to provide a briefaddressing whether the contractor submitted a proper claim to the contracting officerprior to the initiation ofthis appeal, and whetherthe Board has jurisdiction over this appeal. On December 20, 2018, the partiesjointly moved to dismiss this appeal, stating that on December 13, 2018, the contracting officer "issuedtwo modifications to the contract that renderthe request for contract interpretation moot." The parties' motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Dated: February 8, 2019

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

# I I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA No. 61760, Appeal ofU.S. Aeroteam, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:



### 2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) by OptimumBank
Holdings, Inc. (the Company), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|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: November 12, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Albert J. Finch                     
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 12

           INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

            Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (unaudited)

                                 (in thousands)


<TABLE>
                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      ---------------------   -----------------
                                      Nov. 30,     Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,  Nov. 30,
                                         1999         1998       1999      1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>        <C>       <C>
Earnings from
  continuing operations
  before income taxes                 $13,630      $15,363    $29,199   $   882
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                 5,920        6,316     18,987    18,244
Less: Capitalized interest               (234)         (23)      (563)      (54)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings available to cover
  fixed charges                       $19,316      $21,656    $47,623   $19,072
===============================================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       3.26         3.43       2.51      1.05
===============================================================================
</TABLE>

(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:

<TABLE>
                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      --------------------    -----------------
                                      Nov. 30,     Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,  Nov. 30,
                                         1999         1998       1999      1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>          <C>       <C>       <C>
Interest expense, gross                $3,737       $3,976    $12,184   $11,411
Rentals (Interest factor)               2,183        2,340      6,803     6,833
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total fixed charges                  $5,920       $6,316    $18,987   $18,244
===============================================================================
</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BORISLAV IVANOV,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73566

Agency No. A097-586-656

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Borislav Ivanov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

FILED

APR 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73566

findings of fact, and we review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review and remand.

When determining that Ivanov had not established eligibility for asylum and

withholding of removal, the IJ did not consider several incidents of harm suffered

by Ivanov because the IJ found there was insufficient evidence of government

involvement. The IJ erred because affirmative state action is not necessary to

establish eligibility for relief if the government is unable or unwilling to control the

agents of persecution. See Siong v. INS, 376 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9thCir. 2004). 

Accordingly, because the IJ used an incorrect legal standard, we grant the petition

for review and remand Ivanov’s asylum and withholding of removal claims for

further consideration. See Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.

2004) (“[W]e must grant a petition for review and, in an appropriate case, remand a

case for further consideration when the denial of asylum was based on an error of

law.”); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
Dissent:

Judge Rymer would deny the petition for review.

FILED

APR 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS