alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 May 17, 2013

t0514 

# Order

May 17, 2013

145340

- 2

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145340

COA: 296829

MTT: 00

- 296021

BLAIR TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145341

COA: 296830

MTT: 00

- 296028

EAST BAY TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC

COOPERATIVE,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 145342

COA: 296856

MTT: 00

- 296026

GARFIELD TOWNSHIP,

Respondent

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this appeal is considered, and the appeal is DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs.
Order entered August 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00252-CR

ENRIQUE GONZALO EUAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-76141-P

ORDER

Appellant’s August 9, 2016 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is 

GRANTED IN PART. We extend the time to file appellant’s brief until THIRTY DAYS from 

the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor
Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Anna E. Gluskin, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the
"Company"), and Rose C. Perri, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31,
2004, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at
the end of the period covered by the Report.

DATE: March 15, 2004                By: /s/ Anna E. Gluskin
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Anna E. Gluskin, Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)



DATE: March 15, 2004                By: /s/ Rose C. Perri
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Rose C. Perri, Chief Operating Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                 521,484
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          8,486,735
<ALLOWANCES>                            77,403
<INVENTORY>                            534,623
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       10,011,173
<PP&E>                                 68,908,882
<DEPRECIATION>                         19,699,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         59,220,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  18,271,021
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                               18,527
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             9,872,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           59,220,442
<SALES>                                72,284,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       72,284,272
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       67,470,294
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       47,648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,351,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,414,892
<INCOME-TAX>                           531,916
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    882,976
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           882,976
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .48
        

</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ADOLFO BARRON-GALVAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-50156 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00267-BEN-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 14, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: ALARCÓN, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Defendant Adolfo Barron-Galvan app eals his conviction for being found in the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and the resulting sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment. We affirm. 1. Plain error did not occur when the government lawyer made certain statements at sentencing. See United States v. Maldonado , 215 F.3d 1046, 1051 & 

# FILED
SEP 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 nn.5-6 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that we review for plain error whether the government breached its plea obligations when the defendant fails to object at sentencing). The government stood by its recommendation of 60 days’ imprisonment. At most, the government’s additional comments were ambiguous. Accordingly, any error was not plain. See United States v. Dorsey , 677 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that an error is "plain" if it is "clear or obvious"). 2. The district court did not commit significant procedural error at sentencing. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (holding that a reviewing court "must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error"). The district court e xplained its sentence "sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review." United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court consid ered all the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See id. ("The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them."). 3. The sentence was not substantivel y unreasonable, even if it is not the same sentence that we would have imposed. See United States v. Ressam , 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (" [W]e may not reverse just because we think a different sentence is appropriate." (internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John E. Bourgoin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the Form 10-Q.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                                     
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 28, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ JOHN E. BOURGOIN John E.
Bourgoin President and Chief Executive Officer, MIPS Technologies, Inc.



















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS
Technologies and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          3452000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   9350000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1000000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              120700000
<PP&E>                                        279757000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (156197000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                143372000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          33221000
<BONDS>                                       102249000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         240000
<OTHER-SE>                                      7662000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  143372000
<SALES>                                        50291000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               50291000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  90603000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              9639000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49951000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3100000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46851000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46851000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (1.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.96)
        


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2398

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF  AND FOR THE  SIX MONTHS ENDED  JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         291
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               291
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,183
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,550
<OTHER-SE>                                     (23,442)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,083)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in thefollowing Registration Statements: 

(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-36708) of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-122760) of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(3) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-123958) of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(4) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-128644) of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-125906) pertaining to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(6) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44762) pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(7) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87957) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan and 1999 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan of PDLBioPharma, Inc., 

(8) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-65224) pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofPDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(9) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-50116) pertaining to the 2002 Outside Directors StockOption Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(10) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-50114) pertaining to the 1991 Stock OptionPlan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(11) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-96318) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan ofPDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(12) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68314) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan and 1999Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(13) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-104170) pertaining tothe 1999 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and 2002 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., 

(14) RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-125906) pertaining to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc., and 

(15)Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-145262) pertaining to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan and the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of PDL BioPharma, Inc. 

of our report dated February 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of PDL BioPharma, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of PDLBioPharma, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California 

February 26, 2009
EXHIBIT 32

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 Annual Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                         |  |                    
|-------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|               |  |  |  | Bank of America, N.A.,                 
|               |  |  |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|               |  |  | 
|March 14, 2014 |  |  |  | By                                      |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|               |  |  |  |                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|               |  |  |  |                                         |  | Vice President
#### NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION COMMISSION v. CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.

(Filed 20 May, 1931.)

Civil aotion, before *Harris, J.,*at Chambers, Wake Superior Court, 25 April, 1931.

Tbe Central Bank and Trust Company of Raleigb was a banking corporation, and at tbe February Term, 1922, of tbe Superior Court of Wake County in an action entitled “Corporation Commission *v.*Central Bank and Trust Company,” tbe said bank was closed, and J. O. Little, J. B. Ball and W. Gr. Barnes, duly appointed receivers thereof. Tbe Chemical National Bank filed a claim with tbe receivers for tbe sum of $40,919. Tbe Chemical National Bank held certain notes of the Central Bank and Trust Company as collateral security for said indebtedness. When tbe claim was filed tbe receivers took tbe position “that tbe Chemical National Bank was not entitled to receive a dividend upon its entire claim, but only a pro rata dividend on tbe amount of said claim less tbe value of tbe securities held by it.” From tbe ruling of tbe receivers tbe Chemical National Bank appealed to tbe Superior Court. Tbe trial judge decreed and ordered tbe receivers to pay to tbe Chemical National Bank “an amount of money which shall equal such percentage of $40,919 as has heretofore been paid to other creditors of Central Bank and Trust Company,” etc.

From tbe foregoing judgment the receivers appealed.

*Smith & Joyner for plaintiff, Chemical National Bank.*

*Murray Allen for receivers.*

Pee CueiaM.

Tbe judgment is affirmed upon authority of *Central Bank and Trust Co. v. Jarrett,*195 N. C., 798. See, also, *Merrill v. Bank,*173 U. S., 131.

Affirmed.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

An

Bala

75th 

-1.70% -4.20% 0.52% 1.80% -1.17% -2.

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Act

March 31, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: For OASI beneficiaries becoming eligible for benefits in 2018 and later, PIA factors by the ratio of life expectancy at 67 for 2013 to the life expectancy at age 67 for prior to the year of benefit eligibility. Unisex life expectancies, based on period life tables, was projected by SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary. Disability benefits are not affected by the Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining normal retirement age, would be subject to a preduction in benefits based on the worker's years of disability.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this pro

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expend

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this prov
y
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0611. REBECCA PARRIS v. KATHRYN O’NEILL.

Rebecca Parris filed suit against Kathryn O’Neill and Leigh Hiemes. O’Neill

filed an answer and a motion to dismiss, asserting lack of service and jurisdiction. On

September 20, 2021, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the suit with

prejudice as to O’Neill. Parris filed this appeal, and O’Neill has filed a motion to

dismiss arguing that we lack jurisdiction. We agree.

“In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not

a final judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385

SE2d 731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). Under such circumstances, there must be

either an express determination that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA §

9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-

34 (b). See id. “Where neither of these code sections [is] followed, the appeal is

premature and must be dismissed.” Id. (punctuation omitted).

The record does not show that the trial court has resolved Parris’s claims

against Hiemes or that the court directed the entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-

54 (b). Accordingly, in order to appeal, Parris was required to use the interlocutory

appeal procedures, which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from

the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. 729,

730 (776 SE2d 663) (2015). Parris’sfailure to follow the requisite appeal procedures

December 08, 2021
deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. Accordingly, O’Neill’s motion to

dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See

Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. at 730.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/08/2021