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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

October 26, 2009 

p1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139355 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139355 

 COA: 283850 

Wayne CC: 07-003451-FC 

JAMES L. NICHOLAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2009 

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. JAMES ABSON BROWN.

(Filed 23 September, 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *May, Special Judge,*March 9, 1964, Session of CRAVEN.

Defendant was tried in Craven Superior Court on a bill of indictment charging that defendant, on June 29, 1963, in said county, “unlawfully and willfully did drive a motor vehicle upon the public highways of North Carolina while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and narcotic drugs,” etc. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Thereupon, the court pronounced judgment in which a prison sentence was imposed but suspended on specified conditions. Defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.*

*Charles L. Abemethy, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to require submission to the jury and to support the verdict; and careful consideration of each of defendant’s assignments of error fails to disclose any error of law for which a new trial should be awarded. The determinative issue was one of fact; and, after a trial free from prejudicial error, the jury, upon conflicting evidence, resolved the crucial issue against defendant.

No error.
#### STATE v. PARKS

No. 13 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 20.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 February 1976.
#### ALLISON JAMES v. PIEDMONT PUBLISHING COMPANY.

(Filed 1 November, 1967.)

Appeal and Error § 46—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gambill, J.,*2 January 1967 Session of Foesyth.

Civil action against the defendant for libel.

From a judgment sustaining a demurrer *ore tenus*filed to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

*Harold R. Wilson for plaintiff appellant.*

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice by W. P. Sandridge, Irving E. Carlyle and Linwood L. Davis for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The Court being evenly divided in opinion, three members of the Court being of opinion that the demurrer should be sustained and three members of the Court being of opinion that the demurrer should be overruled, Justice I. Beverly Lake taking no part in the consideration or decision of the case, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed after the manner of the usual practice of appellate courts in such cases and stands as the decision in this case without becoming a precedent. *Parrish v. Publishing Co., ante,*711, 157 S.E. 2d 334, and cases therein cited.

Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 1 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 13 of 13
"_ _-.- -. -- " -A-._-_A-.... .-- -1. ---'- 't \ r. -- ~ ~ 

: ,, . \.. r s :,.-I){, :,;..:.LJ::. ! :. 

i. 

:- '- : : 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

IN RE: 

i MASTER FILE 

FOSAMAX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

i I :06-MD-I 789 (SFK) 

Tliis Dorrl~nor~ Hclilres To ,411 Actiolis 

CASE MANAGEblENT ORDER NO. 14 

(Regarding Motions to Remand) 

SOHN F. KEENAh1, Unitcd States 1)istricl .ludgc: 

It has beconic apparent that motions to remand \\zl~icli wcre filed in transfcror 

courts and rcmain pending belorc this Court. as well as thosc which are expcctcd to be filed in 

this Court. \rill raise overlapping challenges to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. In ordcr 

to resolve thcse jurisdiclional issues promptly and efficiently, it is hcreby ORDERED (hat: 

1. For cases transrerrcd to this Cou~t on or heforc March 1, 2008: All remand 

motions shall be served on the Defendant by March 31. 2008. DeTendant shall sen-c its responsc 

to thcse remand motions on or before April 21, 2008. Plaintiffs may servc a reply on or before 

May 2, 2008. On May 2, 2008, cach party shall file its molion papers and provide the Court 

\\it11 courtesy copies. Defendant also shall file on tlic master docket a list of all cascs with 

rcmand motions pending as of that datc. 

2. For cases transfcrred to this Court aftcr March 1, 2008: On thc last business 

day of Junc 2008 and aery sccond month thereafter, DeTendant shall notify thc Court of any 

ne\v remand motions that have been filed. Defcndant shall file and selvc papers in opposition 

thcreto within fourtecn days. PlaintiSfs affected by such motions may scrve and file rcply 

papers. and provide the Court with courtesy copies ofthcir motion papers, within fourteen days 

thereafter. 

SO ORDERED 

Daled: Ncw York. N.Y. 

Decenlbcr z./ , 200? 

- 

United States District Judse 

Case 1:07-cv-03461-JFK Document 19 Filed 12/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BROOKS

No. 76.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 338.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 21 March 1975.
#### YOUNG v. CHEMICAL CO.

No. 80 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 806.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 December 1981.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

|Name:                                            |  | State (or jurisdiction) in which Incorporated
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Website Pros Canada Inc.                         |  | Canada                                       
|1425 N. Washington Street, LLC                   |  | Washington                                   
|Web.com Holding Company, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                                     
|Micron Electronics International, Inc.           |  | Delaware                                     
|Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Holdings, Inc.   |  | B.V.I.                                       
|Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Trading, Ltd.    |  | Hong Kong                                    
|Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Operations, Inc. |  | B.V.I.                                       
|Micron Electronics Overseas Trading, Inc.        |  | Barbados                                     
|Micron Electronics (H.K.) Ltd                    |  | Hong Kong                                    
|MEI California, Inc.                             |  | California                                   
|CommuniTech.net, Inc.                            |  | Missouri                                     
|Wazoo Web, Inc.                                  |  | Georgia                                      
|Perfect Privacy, LLC                             |  | Connecticut                                  
|WSM Holdco, Inc                                  |  | Delaware                                     
|Websource Holdco, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                                     
|Web Astro GP, Inc.                               |  | Delaware                                     
|Web Astro LP, Inc.                               |  | Delaware                                     
|Websource Media, LP                              |  | Delaware                                     
|Trellix Corporation                              |  | Delaware                                     
|Interland Government Contracting, Inc.           |  | Delaware                                     

---



QuickLinks
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 5 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 6 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 7 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 8 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 9 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 10 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 11 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 12 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 13 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 14 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 15 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 16 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 17 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 18 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 19 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 20 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 21 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 22 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 23 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 24 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 25 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 26 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 27 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 28 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 29 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 30 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 31 of 31
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 39 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 13 of 13
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 27, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00551

- CV

Pablo SOLIZ

, Appel lant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 02

- 16542

- CV Honorable David Wellington, III , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In this accelerated appeal, the clerk’s record and reporter’s record were originally due on August 14, 2014. The court reporter has filed a Notification of Late record stating that the reporter’s record was not filed because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. The reporter also stated she has not been asked to produce the record.

Accordingly, if appellant desires a reporter’s record, he is hereby ORDERED to (1) request in writing, no later than September 8, 2014, that a reporter’s record be prepared and (2)
de signate in writing, no later than September 8, 2014, the exhibits and those portions of the record to be included in the reporter’s record. Id. The appellant is hereby ORDERED to file a copy of the request with both the trial court clerk, id. at 34.6(b)( 2), and this court no later than September 8, 2014.

It is further ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court no later than September 8, 2014 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to provide such written proof within the time provided, this court will only consider those issues or points raised in appell ant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record
for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c).

Appellant is reminded that pursuant to our order dated August 22, 2014, he must provide written proof to this court no later than September 2, 2014, that eith er (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal withoutpaying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to file such written proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE v. BLACK

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 501.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keane, Inc. (the “Company) for theperiod ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Brian T. Keane, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)              the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)              the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November  13, 2002 | /s/ Brian T.  Keane                    |   |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 | Brian T.  Keane                        |
|                                 | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee ScientificCorporation; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 16, 2004 

 

/s/ D. Michael Parker

D. Michael Parker
Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

                 -----------------------------------------------


In connection with the Annual Report of Parentech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Landow, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  June 24, 2004


                                    /s/ Scott Landow
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Scott Landow, Chief Executive Officer
#### DEUTSCH v. FISHER

No. 11 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 304.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
----

| *KEMPISTY & COMPANY*                                                                                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, P.C.                                                                                             |
|                                                                                                                                |
| 15 MAIDEN LANE • SUITE 1003 • NEW YORK,      NY 10038 • TEL (212) 406-7CPA (7272) • FAX (212) 513-1930 |

  

September 27, 2005 

  Rockwell Ventures Inc.  Suite 1020, 800 West Pender Street  Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 2V6  Canada

Gentlemen:

We have reviewed the disclosures related to United States Tax Consequences  included in Item 10.E to Form 20-F for Rockwell Ventures Inc. to be filed with  the Securities and Exchange Commission and confirm that such disclosure presents  an accurate discussion of United States Federal Income Tax Consequences contained  therein.

We consent to the statement regarding our firm in the section of the Form 20-F  entitled "Taxation" under Item 10.E of the Form 20-F and the inclusion  of this letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 20-F.

 Kempisty & Company, CPAs, P.C.

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

ii .,.>.- !. 

I i 

L,.uL, 3: . --!I 

1: -~\ +,.1-,,2 :;ii,~,s;-): ,I i;. *i 2.. -I$--~I-o~ -- \! ! ' 

--.." ~.. ^."_.I.._ --- -' 

-_, 1'- -~.. 

.. 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability : 

Litigation 

1: 06-md-1789 (JFK) 

Order -------------------------------.--- X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

--------.-----------------------.-- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

The Plaintiff's Steering Committee ("PSC") has 

requested an evidentiary hearing in advance of oral argument on 

the class certification motions that are currently pending before 

the Court. For the reasons discussed below, the PSC's request is 

DENIED. 

In determining whether to certify a class, a court must 

resolve any factual disputes relevant to each requirement of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In re Initial Public Offerinq 

Securities Litiqation, 471 F.3d 24, 41 (2d Cir. 2006). In 

connection with the instant class certification motion, the 

parties have created and the Court has reviewed an extensive 

evidentiary record. This record consists of the expert 

affidavits of plaintiff's dental experts, Robert E. Marx, D.D.S 

and Alistair N. Goss, D.D.Sc; plaintiff's claims administration 

expert Paul Mulholland, C.P.A., C.V.A.; defendant's medical 

expert, John Bilezikian, M.D.; defendant's expert Jeri W. Nieves, 

PH.D., an epidemiologist who specializes in osteoporosis; 

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 13 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 2
defendant's oral and maxillofacial expert Robert S. Glickman, 

D.M.D.; and defendant's chemistry expert, Paul A. Bartlett. The 

parties have also submitted excerpts from the deposition 

transcripts of several of these experts; the interrogatory 

responses, deposition transcripts and plaintiff profile forms 

("PPF's") of the three putative class representatives, Mr. Trent 

Nichols, Jr., M.D., Ms. Aline Trahan, and Ms. Greta V. Murphy; an 

August 2004 post-marketing safety review from the FDA's Office of 

Drug Safety; and an FDA report showing the number of cases in 

which doctors reported adverse drug experiences associated with 

Fosamax in 1996. The parties have also brought to the Court's 

attention over forty articles and chapters from the oral and 

maxiilofacial, medical and dental scientific literature 

discussing osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") and its causes, 

diagnosis, treatment and relationship to oral bisphosphonates 

such as Fosamax. 

This record provides a sufficient factual basis to 

determine whether plaintiffs' motlons meet Rule 23's requirements 

and an evidentiary hearing will not be necessary. Accordingly, 

the PSC's request is denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: &2~Ccy~ 3 / ' G(? 7 

/ 

( JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03466-JFK Document 13 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 2