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.

 April 29, 2015

t0422

Order 

Clerk

April 29, 2015

150178

BCIC PARKS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150178

COA: 321356

Oakland CC: 2013-131496-NM

JAFFE, RAITT, HEUER & WEISS,

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
Year Cost Rate

Income 

Rate

Annual 

Balance

2008 11.20 12.77 1.57 359

2009 11.26 12.81 1.54 369

2010 11.32 12.82 1.50 380

2011 11.43 12.84 1.40 390

2012 11.61 12.86 1.25 398

2013 11.83 12.89 1.06 403

2014 12.07 12.91 0.83 406

2015 12.32 12.93 0.60 408

2016 12.59 12.95 0.36 408

2017 12.86 12.97 0.11 406

2018 13.11 12.99 -0.12 404

2019 13.37 13.00 -0.36 399

2020 13.63 13.02 -0.61 394

2021 13.87 13.04 -0.83 388

2022 14.10 13.05 -1.05 381

2023 14.32 13.07 -1.26 373

2024 14.54 13.08 -1.45 364

2025 14.74 13.10 -1.64 354

2026 14.92 13.11 -1.82 344

2027 15.10 13.12 -1.98 333

2028 15.27 13.13 -2.14 321

2029 15.43 13.14 -2.28 308

2030 15.56 13.15 -2.41 295

2031 15.67 13.16 -2.51 282

2032 15.76 13.17 -2.59 268

2033 15.82 13.17 -2.65 255

2034 15.86 13.18 -2.69 241

2035 15.89 13.18 -2.71 227

2036 15.90 13.18 -2.72 213

2037 15.90 13.18 -2.71 199

2038 15.88 13.18 -2.70 185

2039 15.85 13.18 -2.67 171

2040 15.81 13.18 -2.62 157

2041 15.76 13.18 -2.58 142

2042 15.72 13.18 -2.54 128

2043 15.68 13.18 -2.50 114

2044 15.64 13.18 -2.46 100

2045 15.60 13.18 -2.42 86

2046 15.57 13.18 -2.40 72

2047 15.55 13.18 -2.37 58

2048 15.53 13.18 -2.35 44

2049 15.51 13.18 -2.33 29

2050 15.50 13.18 -2.32 15

2051 15.50 13.18 -2.32 0

2052 15.50 13.18 -2.33 ----

2053 15.51 13.18 -2.33 ----

2054 15.52 13.18 -2.34 ----

2055 15.54 13.18 -2.36 ----

2056 15.56 13.18 -2.38 ----

2057 15.59 13.19 -2.40 ----

2058 15.61 13.19 -2.42 ----

2059 15.63 13.19 -2.44 ----

2060 15.65 13.19 -2.46 ----

2061 15.68 13.19 -2.48 ----

2062 15.70 13.19 -2.50 ----

2063 15.72 13.20 -2.52 ----

2064 15.74 13.20 -2.54 ----

2065 15.77 13.20 -2.57 ----

Detailed Single Year Tables

Category of Change: Cost-of-Living Adjustment

Proposed Provision: Beginning December 2009, reduce cost-of-living adjustment for OASDI benefits by 

0.5 percentage point

Expressed as a percentage of taxable payrol Trust Fund 

Ratio 

1-1-year
2066 15.79 13.20 -2.59 ----

2067 15.82 13.20 -2.62 ----

2068 15.85 13.20 -2.64 ----

2069 15.88 13.21 -2.67 ----

2070 15.91 13.21 -2.70 ----

2071 15.94 13.21 -2.73 ----

2072 15.98 13.21 -2.77 ----

2073 16.01 13.21 -2.80 ----

2074 16.05 13.22 -2.83 ----

2075 16.08 13.22 -2.86 ----

2076 16.12 13.22 -2.90 ----

2077 16.16 13.22 -2.94 ----

2078 16.20 13.23 -2.98 ----

2079 16.24 13.23 -3.01 ----

2080 16.28 13.23 -3.05 ----

2081 16.33 13.23 -3.09 ----

2082 16.37 13.24 -3.13 ----

2083 16.41 13.24 -3.17 ----

2084 16.45 13.24 -3.21 ----

2085 16.49 13.24 -3.25 ----

Summarized Rates: OASDI

2008 Cost Rate Income Rate

Actuarial 

Balance

-2082 14.85% 13.90% -0.95% 0.75%

Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

Estimates based on Intermediate Assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report

Change in 

Actuarial Balance

July 17, 2008
##### 



Exhibit 21.1

E COM VENTURES, INC.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|                                           |  |                       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION
|                                           |  |                       
|Perfumania, Inc.                           |  | Florida               
|                                           |  |                       
|Magnifique Parfumes and Cosmetics, Inc.    |  | Florida               
|                                           |  |                       
|Perfumania Puerto Rico, Inc.               |  | Puerto Rico           
|                                           |  |                       
|Ten Kesef II, Inc.                         |  | Florida               
|                                           |  |                       
|perfumania.com, inc                        |  | Florida               
|                                           |  |                       
|Perfumania International Franchising, Inc. |  | Florida
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 60011 Summary Calendar

Rosa Luz Rivera

- Fiallos,

Petitioner ,

versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A097 836 449

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Rosa Luz Rivera

- Fiallos , a native and citizen of Honduras, p etition s for review of a n order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen and rescind her in absentia order of removal. Rivera

- Fiallos argues that she is

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 2, 2021 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60011 Document: 00515924178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2021No. 20

- 60011

2 entitled to reopening and rescission of her order of removal because , as she attested in her affidavit, she did not receive notice of her removal proceed ings. Because she does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she was not a minor when she entered the United States and that the notice to appear was not defective, she has abandoned review of those issue s. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard

. Lowe v. Sessions , 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017). An in absentia order of removal may be rescinded if an alien demonstrates tha t she did not receive notice of the hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). While a motion to reopen focuses on whether the alien actually received the necessary notice and not whether the notice was properly mailed, there is a presumption of effective service when a notice of hearing is sent by regular mail. Nunez v. Sessions , 882 F.3d 499, 506 (5th Cir. 2018). In determining whether this presumption is rebutted, “‘all relevant evidence,’ both direct and circumstantial, should be considered.” Navarre te

- Lopez v. Barr , 919 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Matter of M

- R

- A

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 674

- 75 (BIA 2008)). Because the BIA properly considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that Rivera

- Fiallos failed to rebut the presumptio n of receipt, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of the motion to reopen. See Mauricio

- Benitez v. Sessions , 908 F.3d 144, 150

- 51 (5th Cir. 2018)

. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED

. T he Government’s motion for summa ry disposition , which is docketed as a motion for summary affirmance, is DENIED as moot

. Case: 20-60011 Document: 00515924178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2021
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Activant Solutions Inc. for the three and
nine months ended June 30, 2007;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;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 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 have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
    By:
    /s/ PERVEZ QURESHIPervez QureshiPresident  & Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 32.02


                                  CERTIFICATION
                   Pursuant to 18 United States Code ss. 1350

     The undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003 of Fisher Scientific International Inc. (the
"Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                        /s/ Kevin P. Clark
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Kevin P. Clark
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        March 11, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fisher Scientific International Inc. and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0 216

_____________________________
M ANUEL B. A YALA , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. February 26, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and R AY and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler K. Payne, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                        

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998          
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998    
<CASH>                                           1,141  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,252   
<ALLOWANCES>                                       245  
<INVENTORY>                                     10,447  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,186  
<PP&E>                                          52,326  
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,974  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,324  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,250  
<BONDS>                                         13,055  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                           638  
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,733  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,324  
<SALES>                                         47,524  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,903  
<CGS>                                           37,982 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,125  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,005 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,702)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,500) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,958)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,958)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.98) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.98) 
                                               


</TABLE>
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3532 

To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to Ansarallah and its 

officials, agents, or affiliates for acts of international terrorism. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 20, 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SASSE, and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to 

Ansarallah and its officials, agents, or affiliates for acts 

of international terrorism. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO 

4 ANSARALLAH. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall— 

7 (1) designate Ansarallah as a foreign terrorist 

8 organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immi9 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3532 IS

1 (2) impose, with respect to Ansarallah and any 

2 foreign person the President determines is an offi3 cial, agent, or affiliate of Ansarallah, the sanctions 

4 applicable with respect to a foreign person pursuant 

5 to Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; re6 lating to blocking property and prohibiting trans7 actions with persons who commit, threaten to com8 mit, or support terrorism). 

9 (b) DETERMINATION REQUIRED.—Not later than 30 

10 days after the President makes the designation required 

11 by paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and imposes the sanc12 tions required by paragraph (2) of that subsection, the 

13 President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Rela14 tions of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

15 of the House of Representatives a determination regarding 

16 whether the following foreign persons are officials, agents, 

17 or affiliates of Ansarallah: 

18 (1) Abdul Malik al-Houthi. 

19 (2) Abd al-Khaliq Badr al-Din al-Houthi. 

20 (3) Abdullah Yahya al-Hakim. 

21 (c) ANSARALLAH DEFINED.—In this section, the 

22 term ‘‘Ansarallah’’ means the movement known as 

23 Ansarallah, the Houthi movement, or any other alias. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### OLIVER G. RAND and WADE A. GARDNER, Commissioners, v. CITY OF WILSON; BLANCHE WOOLARD, City Tax Collector; and F. TALMADGE GREEN, City Manager and City Treasurer.

(Filed 2 November, 1955.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Nimocks, J.,*May Term, 1955, Wilson.

Reversed.

*Lucas, Band & Bose and Gardner, Connor & Lee, Cyrus F. Lee for ;plaintiff appellants.*

*Carr & Gibbons for defendant appellees.*

Pek Cueiam.

This and the case of *Rand v. Wilson County, ante,*p. 43, are companion cases, the only difference being that this action is to recover taxes paid under protest to the City of Wilson rather than the County of Wilson. The judgment entered in the court below is reversed on authority of *Rand v. Wilson County, supra.*

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,946
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,176
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,235
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          26,181
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,151
<LOANS>                                         45,363
<ALLOWANCE>                                        278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,549
<DEPOSITS>                                      44,024
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                346
<LONG-TERM>                                     17,733
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  87,549
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,274
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,218
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   208
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,700
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,396
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,182
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,518
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       25
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    487
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         487
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.44
<LOANS-NON>                                        226
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   265
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       12
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  278
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               278
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### CUTTER REALTY COMPANY v. ERNEST ELLISON.

(Filed 11 December, 1929.)

Appeal by defendant from *Shaw, Judge,*at the regular October Term, 1929, of MecicleNBueg.

Affirmed.

*Stewart, McRae & Bobbitt for plaintiff.*

*Taliaferro & Clarkson for defendant.*

Pee Cubiam.

It was admitted by counsel upon the argument that the disposition of this appeal shall be controlled by *DeLaney v. Hart, ante,*96. Judgment

Affirmed.
#### W. H. HUGHES et al. v. M. G. TEASTER et al.

(Filed 7 December, 1932.)

Cancellation of Instruments B 1) — Plaintiff must show his interest in land and right to sue in order to maintain action.

*Servible:*The county commissioners are necessary parties to declare a deed to the county void, and where there are no allegations in the complaint showing the right of the plaintiffs to bring the suit, or that they were taxpayers or residents of the county or have an interest authorizing them to bring suit, the case will be dismissed. In this case there was no allegation of a demand upon and refusal of the commissioners to bring suit. *WadAiTl v. Masten,*172 N. C., 582.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Moore, J.,*at April Term, 1932, of Aveey.

Civil action to declare void deed made to board of commissioners of Avery County for county-home site.

From judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiffs appeal, assigning-errors.

*Watson & Fonts for plaintiffs.*

*Ervin & Ervin for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

The purpose of the suit being to divest the county of its property, or to set aside a conveyance already made to the board of *652commissioners, it would seem that the grantee in said deed is a necessary party to a complete determination of the rights of those claiming an interest therein. *Le Duc v. Brandt,*110 N. C., 289, 14 S. E., 778. Avery County is not a party to the action.

It does not appear from the complaint who the plaintiffs are or what interest they may have in the litigation. It is not alleged that they are taxpayers or residents of Avery County. This is gleaned, if at all, from the title of the cause. 44 C. J., 1430.

It not appearing that the plaintiffs have such interest as to authorize them to bring the action, or that they are in position to do so, the motion to dismiss was properly allowed. *Hines v. Vann,*118 N. C., 3, 23 S. E., 932.

There is no allegation of demand and refusal on the part of the county commissioners to bring suit, as was the case in *Waddill v. Hasten,*172 N. C., 582, 90 S. E., 694.

Affirmed.