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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

135320 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 135320 COA: 280446 Oakland CC: 2006-209328-FH 2006-209128-FH KIMLIN DELL PURIFOY, a/k/a KEMLIN PURIFOY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0211 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.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 10.73

                            [LETTERHEAD OF FUTUREONE]

                       1880 OFFICE CLUB POINTE, SUITE 2000
                      COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80920-5002
                      VOICE 719-272-8222 & FAX 719-272-8225
                            E-MAIL CEO@FUTUREONE.COM

January 17, 2001

Mr. Richard McCulloch
1100 McCulloch Blvd.
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

Dear Richard:

We  apologize  for the long delay in getting  in touch with you  regarding  that
certain convertible note dated as of February 9, 2000 in the amount of $250,000,
which was due August 8, 2000 and payments on your lease.

We were disappointed in April when $2.2 million of committed funding on a bridge
loan failed to close when the stock market fell apart and we were  devastated in
July when Wood Capital,  representing Barron Capital, failed to meet its written
commitment for funding of up to $10,000,000.

At that point we thought all was lost, but in August we regrouped,  cut way back
and divested of everything but our construction company. OPEC is doing well, but
at its  present  levels  it  only  produces  sufficient  cash  flow  for its own
operations and a small amount for retiring prior FutureOne obligations.

We  believe  that  we  can  eventually   settle  and  pay  all  prior  FutureOne
liabilities,  but it could  take up to two years  unless we obtain  the  Venture
Capital funding that we are presently seeking.

We  realize  that you have been very  patient,  but we are  asking  you like all
FutureOne  creditors to work with us on reducing our debt and extending payments
over the next two years.

Consequently we would propose the following:

1)   That the present  principal  on your Note and your lease be combined . this
     would leave a current balance of $282,933, and.

2)   That you  forgive  all of the  interest  accrued  to date on the two debts,
     approximately $47,865, and

3)   That the interest rate on the new debt be reduced to 8%, and

4)   We would then begin to pay you at the rate of TEN  THOUSAND  ($10,000)  per
     month,  beginning  February  15, 2001 until all  principal  and interest is
     paid.  If,  however we receive  funding in excess of $5,000,000 at any time
     prior to payment of the note in full, we would pay any remaining  principal
     and interest within ten (10) days of the receipt of such funds.
<PAGE>
Mr. Richard B. McCulloch
Page -2-

Under the  circumstances  we believe  this is the best we can offer and trust it
will be  satisfactory to you. If so, please indicate by signing below and faxing
a copy to 719-272-8225

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours,


Ear J. Cook
For the Board of Directors of
FutureOne, Inc.



I agree to the payment terms described above

/s/ Richard B. McCulloch
-------------------------------------
Richard B. McCulloch

Date: January 17, 2001
**Exhibit 31.1**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
      ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 302(a) OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      Colin
      Halpern, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Universal Services Group,
      Inc.;




2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, this 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 report; and




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 small business issuer as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report.


DATE:
                August 15, 2007/s/
                COLIN HALPERNColin
                HalpernChief
                Executive Officer and
              Acting
                Chief Financial Officer
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued011296N
Master Air Cargo, Inc., 3900 NW. 79th Avenue, Suite 236, Doral, FL 33166
March 26, 2010.017843NF
Washington Movers, Inc., 7913 Cryden Way, Forestville, MD 20747
March 28, 2010.021331N
Deseret Forwarding International, Inc., 4105 Rio Bravo, Suite 100, El Paso, TX 79902
February 25, 2010.021896N
Logistic Freight Forwarders, Group, Inc., 7232 NW. 56th Street, Miami, FL 33166
March 25, 2010.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing


[FR Doc. 2010–10751 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
Exhibit 99.3



|     |  |  |  |                                        |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                
|---- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | BDO Dunwoody LLP Chartered Accountants |  |  |  | 600 Cathedral Place 925 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 3L2 Telephone: (604) 688-5421 Telefax: (604) 688-5132 E-mail: vancouver@bdo.ca www.bdo.ca

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Minera Andes Inc.

Spokane, Washington

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 and S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 333-77663 and 333-34023,
respectively) of Minera Andes Inc., of our report dated April 17, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc., which appears in this Form 40-F.

/s/ BDO Dunwoody LLP

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

April 24, 2007
(July 2, 1924.)

#### MRS. A. G. GALLAP, Respondent, v. UNION AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.

[228 Pac. 881.]

Appeal — Motion to Dismiss — Failure to File Transcript Within Time Required by Rule.

1. Where a transcript on appeal has not been filed within the time limited by the rules, or an extension thereof, sueh appeal will, upon motion, be dismissed, in the absence of a sufficient showing of diligence by the appellant.

*3532. Appellant’s failure to apply for extension of time within which to file transcript constitutes lack of diligence, which, being unexplained and unexcnsed, is ground for dismissing the appeal.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Charles F. Reddoeh, Judge.

Action on insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff.

*Appeal dismissed.*

J. P. Pope, for Appellant,

files no brief on motion.

Hawley & Hawley for Respondent.

This appeal comes squarely under Rules 26, 27 and 28 of this court. *(H. B. Lake & Co. v. Bales,*36 Ida. 142, 210 Pac. 396; *Blumauer-Framik Drug Co. v. National Bank,*35 Ida. 436, 206 Pac. 807; *Columbia Trust Co. v. Balding,*34 Ida. 579, 205 Pac. 264.)

McCARTHY, C. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the transcript was not filed in this court within 90 days after the perfection of the appeal, as required by Rule 26, and the time to file the transcript was not extended as provided by Rule 28. The facts are as stated in the motion. Appellant has not shown any reason or excuse for not obtaining an extension of time within which to file the transcript in this court. "While a stipulation in regard to the contents of the transcript was entered into after the making of the motion to dismiss, it expressly saves all rights under that motion. Under Rules 26, 28 and 29, as interpreted and enforced consistently by a long line of decisions beginning with *Iowa State Savings Bank v. Twomey,*31 Ida. 683, 175 Pac. 812, and ending with *Intermountain Assn. of Credit Men v. Bexburg Farmers Society of Equity,*38 Ida. 121, 220 Pac. 114, appellant’s failure to apply for an extension of time within which to file his transcript constituted lack of diligence, and, being unexplained and unexcused, is ground for dismissing the *354appeal. The motion to dismiss is therefore granted, with, costs to respondent.

Budge and William A. Lee, JJ., concur.

WM. E. LEE, J.

I dissent, for tbe reason stated in dissenting opinion in *Utana Mining Corp. v. Salmon River Power & Light Co.,*37 Ida. 793, 218 Pac. 789.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1862 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1862

           Entitled ``Vermont Infrastructure Bank Program''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 4, 1999

 Mr. Jeffords introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           Entitled ``Vermont Infrastructure Bank Program''.

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

SECTION 1. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 1511(b)(1)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (23 U.S.C. 181 note; 112 Stat. 251) is amended by inserting 
``Vermont,'' after ``Florida''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b)) OR RULE 15d-14(b) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(b)) AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18 U.S.C. 1350), PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of ILOG S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ending June 30, 2005 (the Report), we, Pierre Haren, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jérôme Arnaud, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, promulgated under 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: October 4, 2005 | By:
___________________________
Pierre Haren
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |                                                                                                                
|                      |                                                                                                                
|Date: October 4, 2005 | By:
___________________________
Jérôme Arnaud
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)            



The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  Such certifications will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates them by reference.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6303
WILLIAM RAY DELOACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHANIE KING; BARBARA WHEELER, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-621-R) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Ray Deloach, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Deloach v. King , No. CA-95-621-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 23, 1996).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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Ameresco Federal Solutions, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DACA87-92-C-0128 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 593 77 

James D. Bachman, Esq. 

Ron R. Hutchinson, Esq. 

Doyle & Bachman, LLP 

Arlington, VA 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Raymond R. Adams, JA 

Erica S. Beardsley, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 24 April 2015 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59377, Appeal of Ameresco Federal 

Solutions, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-1502

Lower Tribunal Nos. 2017-CF-013169-A, 2017 -CF-013162-A, 

2017-CF-013165-A, 2017-CF-013167-A, and 2017-CF-012565-A

_____________________________

DUANE DARRELL JORDAN,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Patricia L. Strowbridge, Judge.

July 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA and GANNAM, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1742

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit certain skilled

nursing facilities to participate in the 3-year transition period under

the prospective payment system for skilled nursing facility services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 18, 1999

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit

certain skilled nursing facilities to participate in the 3-

year transition period under the prospective payment

system for skilled nursing facility services.

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

3 SECTION. 1. APPLICATION OF PPS TRANSITION PERIOD TO

4 CERTAIN SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1888(e)(2)(E) of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(E)) is

7 amended—
2

•S 1742 IS

1 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘In’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘Subject to clause (iii), in’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(iii) SPECIAL RULE.—Clause (ii)

5 shall not apply (and the transition period

6 shall apply) to a skilled nursing facility

7 that—

8 ‘‘(I) received a medicare provider

9 number prior to August 30, 1995;

10 ‘‘(II) provided services to bene11 ficiaries under this title prior to such

12 date; and

13 ‘‘(III) elects to waive the applica14 tion of clause (ii).’’.

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact17 ment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law

18 105–33; 111 Stat. 251).

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DELONTE FITZGERALD DAVAGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messittee, District Judge. (CR-95-

77-PJM, CA-96-1909-PJM)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delonte Fitzgerald Davage, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Mason Thomas,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed

by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)). Parties to civil actions in which the United States is a

party have sixty days within which to file in the district court

notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the

district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on August 23, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on December 26, 1996, which is

beyond the sixty-day period. Appellant's failure to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of

the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
II

Calendar No. 508

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1778

[Report No. 106–271]

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade Reservoir.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 25, 1999

Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

APRIL 13, 2000

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, with an amendment

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade

Reservoir.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1778 RS

1 SECTION 1. EXCHANGES OF LAND EXCESS TO CASCADE

2 RESERVOIR RECLAMATION PROJECT.

3 Section 5 of Public Law 86–92 (73 Stat. 219) is

4 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol5 lowing:

6 ‘‘(b) LAND EXCHANGES.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may ex8 change land of either class described in subsection

9 (a) for non-Federal land of not less than approxi10 mately equal value, as determined by an appraisal in

11 accordance with section 206(d) of the Federal Land

12 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.

13 1716(d)).

14 ‘‘(2) EQUALIZATION.—If the land exchanged

15 under paragraph (1) are not of equal value, the val16 ues shall be equalized in accordance with section

17 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management

18 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)).’’.

19 SECTION 1. EXCHANGES OF LAND EXCESS TO CASCADE

20 RESERVOIR RECLAMATION PROJECT.

21 Section 5 of Public Law 86–92 (73 Stat. 219) is

22 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol23 lowing:

24 ‘‘(b) LAND EXCHANGES.—

25 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange

26 land of either class described in subsection (a) for
3

S 1778 RS

1 non-Federal land of not less than approximately

2 equal value, as determined by an appraisal carried

3 out in accordance with—

4 ‘‘(A) the Uniform Relocation Assistance and

5 Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970

6 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.); and

7 ‘‘(B) the publication entitled ‘Uniform Ap8 praisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisi9 tions’, as amended by the Interagency Land Ac10 quisition Conference in consultation with the De11 partment of Justice.

12 ‘‘(2) EQUALIZATION.—If the land exchanged

13 under paragraph (1) is not of equal value, the values

14 shall be equalized by the payment of funds by the Sec15 retary or the grantor, as appropriate, in an amount

16 equal to the amount by which the values of the land

17 differ.’’.
Calendar No. 508

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1778

[Report No. 106–271]

A BILL

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the

Cascade Reservoir.

APRIL 13, 2000

Reported with an amendment