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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, 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.

March 20, 2015 

# Order

March 20, 2015

Rehearing No. 606

149984 ( 67)(69 )

CARNICE HODGE,

Claimant

- Appellee,

v

U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Respondent

- Appellee,

and

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING &

REGULATORY AFFAIRS/UNEMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE AGENCY,

Appellant. SC: 149984

COA: 311387

Wayne CC: 12

- 001500

- AE

________________________________________/

On order of the C ourt

, the motion of the Legal Services Association of Michigan

to file a brief amicus curiae in support of the motion for rehearing is GRANTED. The

amicus brief submitted on March 13, 2015, is accepted for filing. On further order of the

Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED

.
#### SEVENTY-FIRST STREET AND BROADWAY CORPORATION, v. THOMAS R. THORNE.

For the plaintiff, *Insley, Vreeland and Decker.*

For the defendant, *Wall, Haight, Carey £ Hartpence.*

Campbell, J.

The defendant holds a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the levy made upon the pension fund of the International Mercantile Marine Company should not be vacated.

The judgment under which the execution in question issued was taken by default in a proceeding in attachment. Thereafter a *scire facias*issued and was served upon the International Mercantile Marine Company and the trustees of the pension fund of that company. To this a return was made seting up, among other things: “(a) that under the rules and regulations governing said pension fund, the defendant, Thorne, has no right or credit therein which is subject to attachment or execution; * * * (c) that said fund is exempt from attachment, execution, levy or seizure by any alleged creditor of the defendant as a beneficiary of said fund.”

The plaintiff moved to dismiss the return and the matter came on before and was heard by Judge Ackerson, sitting as Supreme Court commissioner, who filed his conclusions in this court. His conclusion is “for the reasons already stated, I am forced to conclude that the defendant has no right or credit in the pension fund in question, and that the funds sought to be reached are exempt from garnishment.”

A judgment denying the motion to strike out the before mentioned return was duly entered in this court on January 29th, 1932. 9 *N. J. Mis. R.*99.

*458On February 2d, 1932, an execution was issued out of this court under the same judgment in attachment under which the *scire facias*before referred to had issued and the sheriff of Hudson county made the following levy:

“Levied on pension fund money due and to become due to the above named defendant, Thomas E. Thorne, from the International Mercantile Marine Company pension fund levy made by serving Edward F. Briggs, secretary, Hudson Trust Company, agent for International Mercantile Marine Company, February 2d, 1932.” Thereupon the rule now before me issued.

It appears beyond question that under the motion to set aside the return to the *scire facias*and by the judgment thereunder it was definitely and decisively found and settled that the pension fund in question was not subject to attachment, garnishment or levy.

While that judgment stands it is dispositive of the question before me under the present rule to show cause, which rule will be made absolute and the levy under the execution vacated and set aside. A proper rule, in consonance herewith, may be presented for signing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         212
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,410
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       118,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     (143,928)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               43,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (43,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                15,464
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,541)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        


</TABLE>
# L_2007227EN.01000701.xml

| 31.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1006/2007

of 30 August 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 30 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 30 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 30 August 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 41,172 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 August 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 August 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26.

2

---
EXHIBIT 31.2
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott R. Thompson, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on form 10-QSB of The X-Change
Corporation,

         2. Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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
quarterly report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 for the registrant and have:

        a) designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure that
        material   information   relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
        consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others  within those
        entities,  particularly  during the period in which this report is being
        prepared;

        b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
        and  procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
        this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        c)  presented  in  this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
        effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our
        evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee  of  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent functions):

        a) all  significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls.

         6. The registrant's  other certifying  officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant  changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of my most recent  evaluation,  including any  corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 21, 2006



/s/ Scott R. Thompson
Scott R. Thompson, Chief
Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5668 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to require the use of sums received as fines, penalties, and forfeitures 

of property for violations of that Act or other marine resource laws 

to be used to reduce the Federal deficit and debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2010 

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to require the use of sums received 

as fines, penalties, and forfeitures of property for violations of that Act or other marine resource laws to be 

used to reduce the Federal deficit and debt. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5668 IH

1 SECTION 1. USE OF FINES, PENALTIES, AND FORFEITURES 

2 OF PROPERTY FOR VIOLATIONS OF MARINE 

3 RESOURCE LAWS TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL 

4 DEFICIT AND DEBT. 

5 Section 311(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

6 Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861(e)) 

7 is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 

9 law, sums received as fines, penalties, and forfeitures 

10 of property for violations of any provisions of this 

11 Act or of any other marine resource law enforced by 

12 the Secretary, including the Lacey Act Amendments 

13 of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) shall be deposited 

14 into the Treasury and applied— 

15 ‘‘(A) to reduce the annual Federal budget 

16 deficit for the fiscal year in which the sums are 

17 received, except as provided in subparagraph 

18 (B); and 

19 ‘‘(B) if there is no annual Federal budget 

20 deficit for such fiscal year, to reduce the out21 standing Federal debt.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
# L_2007291EN.01000601.xml

| 9.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1310/2007

of 8 November 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 of 14 September 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 of 14 September 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 7 November 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 7 November 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 7 November 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 shall be 422,21 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 November 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 November 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 242, 15.9.2007, p. 8.

2

---
# L_2007156EN.01001001.xml

| 16.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 156/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 156/10

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 675/2007

of 15 June 2007

determining the extent to which the applications for import licences lodged during the first 10 days of June 2007 for butter originating in New Zealand under quota numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (2), and in particular Article 35a(3) thereof,

Whereas:

Applications for import licences, lodged from 1 to 10 June 2007 for butter originating in New Zealand under quotas numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 referred to in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 and notified to the Commission by 13 June 2007, concern quantities greater than those available. Allocation coefficients should therefore be fixed for the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import licences for butter originating in New Zealand under the quota numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 from 1 to 10 June 2007 and notified to the Commission by 13 June 2007 shall be accepted subject to the application of the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 487/2007 (OJ L 114, 1.5.2007, p. 8).

2

---

ANNEX

| Quota number | Allocation coefficient |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4195 | 20,172164  % |
| 09.4182 | 100  % |

Quota number

Allocation coefficient

09.4195

20,172164  %

09.4182

100  %

---
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43524

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

GARY WAYNE CARTER ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 523

Filed: May 5, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy Hansen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentence s of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver ; five years indeterminate for felony intimidating a witness ; and five years indeterminate for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respond ent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Gary Wayne Carter pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to

deliver , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a); intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing the

attendance of a witness, I.C. § 18

- 2604; and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18

- 3316

. The district court sentenced Carter to unified sentences of five years with four years determinate
for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and conse cutive five year2

indeterminate sentences for felony intimidating a witness and unlawful possession of a firearm

. Carter appeals asserting the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial co urt’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Carter ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s are af firmed.