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, 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.

 June 19, 2013

h0612

Order 

Clerk

June 19, 2013

145005

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145005

COA: 308153

Wayne CC: 08-009489

NARGIZ IBRAGIMOVA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

CAVANAGH and MCCORMACK, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12205-12206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5393]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Meeting

    The Information Technology and Applications Panels of the USAF 
Scientific Advisory Board will meet on 21-21 March 1995 at The ANSER 
Corporation, Arlington, VA from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of this meeting will be to provide science and 
technology assessments on issues relating to [[Page 12206]] information 
technology and applications.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-4648.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-5393 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3148

Johnson Electric North America, Inc:

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

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13745-13746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6250]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2760; Amendment #3]


California; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area

    The above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended, effective 
February 27, 1995, to include Kings County in the State of California 
as a disaster area due to damages resulting from winter storms causing 
flooding, landslides, mud and [[Page 13746]] debris flows beginning on 
January 3, 1995, and continuing.
    All counties contiguous to Kings County have previously been 
declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is March 13, 1995, and for 
economic injury the deadline is October 10, 1995.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: March 8, 1995.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-6250 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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 24, 2011 

y1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143518 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143518 

 COA: 304080 

Muskegon CC: 08-057102-FC 

LUKE MORRIS ABBEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Cite as State v. Davidson , 2017-Ohio-8038.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-04-044

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 10/2/2017 : MICHAEL L. DAVIDSON, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2016-11-1748

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee Mary K. Martin, 4460 Duke Drive, Suite 101, Mason, Ohio 45040, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Michael L. Davidson, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by theButler CA2017-04-044

- 2 - trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3133

Sowa Tool & Machine Co. Ltd:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3086

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS**OFFP&J?..9{911~.~\.l~U ~** **~A** TIO**:.,.AUS:riN,.~AD_~1:16sTAGE))P1TNEYBOWES** STATEOFTEXAS

### w.~... .. :t_

### ~~··**IJ.IJ.~~W?'** PENAL TV FOR ·

### ·""'bJ:-,;;r-2?7'~ 'if. d

### ~..c::::::::::7~**,{}7:;"'~ourw 4**  

# == !PRIVATE USIE**dJ•·}.~, ·~"""·,;;;**  . ·\·

. ZIP

. 78701

### ~ 

### 1)11)'1()' GSl'775

;j**A,'"~** W a::1\ 

### .f"

. 02 1W '91 \W\W\Wof!:. 0

### ;~"!If**"'J~~~""~'· .:~**  

## , ·. 0001401603 JUN. 03. 2015. 

### 6/3/2015 r;} 0**~** 

### RENO, PETER T. Tf,;€t. r:J6"::f3-25065+8 WR-83,321-02

This Court is in receipt of appl'ica'nt:s

.. "i\nOJ0fOt:fTO WITHDRAW APPLICATION

3--\..**~ -~,.,.,~,.n,;.r**  '<'- .,/';/ 

### FOR WRIT OF HABEAS**CORPUS'~,~l'his,moti0h** 

### has been granted.

### ~-~ Abel Acosta, Clerk

\.

### ~~' ·iE8N3B 77002 ·
EXHIBIT 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos.  33-94026,  33-51234,  33-75028,  33-77684,  33-57628,
33-80581, 33-80583, 333-42775,  333-89325 and 333-89329) pertaining to the Apria
Healthcare  Group  Inc./Homedco  Group,  Inc. Stock  Incentive  Plan, 1992 Stock
Option Plan,  1992 Stock Incentive Plan, 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1991
Management Stock Purchase Plan, Apria Healthcare Group Inc. Amended and Restated
1992 Stock Incentive Plan, Apria Healthcare Group Inc. 1991  Nonqualified  Stock
Option Plan, 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, 1998  Nonqualified  Stock Incentive Plan
and Philip L. Carter  Non-Qualified  Stock Option  Agreement of our report dated
February  17,  2000,  appearing  in the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of  Apria
Healthcare Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 24, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DAVID C. MOGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant,-vsALLSTATE MOTOR CLUB, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus, The Honorable Peter L. Rapkoch, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: David C. Mogan, Hinsdale,Montana, (ProSe) For Respondent: William E. Berger, Wilkins and Berger, Lewistown, Montana

Filed: Submitted on Briefs: August 9, 1990 Decided:


## 'Clerk'.. 1 \

f' 

### ; Justice Diane G. Barz delivered the Opinion of the Court.
David C. Mogan appeals the judgment of the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Fergus County, granting defendant/ respondent,AllstateMotor Club, Inc., summary judgment,dismissing Mogan's first amended complaint, and imposing sanctions against Mogan pursuant to Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. This Court finds substantial evidence in the record which supports the District Court'sdetermination that thematter should be dismissed and that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate. On October 16, 1989, Mogan filed suit against Allstate claiming non-payment of a $41.20 claim. Allstate had paid the claim in full on September 11, 1989, and on September 27, 1989, Mogan had signed a releasestatingthat all claimsagainstAllstate had been satisfied. Mogan's claimwas not "wellgrounded in fact"
or "warranted by existing law" as required by Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P. In addition, we find the District Court's award to Allstate of costs and attorney's fees totalling $1,793.75 is a sanction specifically authorized by Rule 11,M.R.Civ.P. We rejectMogan's argument that the ruling is invalid because he had insufficient notice of an earlier hearing where default judgmentwas entered against him for two reasons: 1) notice was proper; and 2) Mogan was present at the second hearing when the District Court reheard the matter. We also note that appellant Mogan has failed to pay this Court's filing fee for appeal of this action. Until such fee isL 4 ' 

### *b I' 

### i received, David C. Mogan is barred from bringing any further actions in this Court. Affirmed. Let remittitur issue forthwith. See Rules 34 and 35,M.R.App.P. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 InternalOperating Rules,thisdecision shall not be cited as precedentand shallbe published by its filingasapublic document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6104

LARRY EUGENE SMITH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant,

v. THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise A. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-2012-FL) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Eugene Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry Eugene Smith, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2757

Valeo North America, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Opinion issued July 18, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00296-CV

———————————

SHEILA FOSTER, Appellant

V.

SPRING HOSPITAL, HEIGHTS HOSPITAL AND NORTH HOUSTON 

SURGICAL HOSPITAL, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-81813

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Sheila Foster has neither established indigence, nor requested, 

paid, or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); ), 37.3(b) 

(allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault). 
2

On May 28, 2024, the Court issued a notice, advising appellant that failure to pay 

the fee for the clerk’s record or make payment arrangements for the preparation 

and filing of the clerk’s record could result in dismissal of this appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if 

no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal of case). Appellant did not respond to our notice concerning the clerk’s 

record.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as 

moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices 

# Order

December 27, 2018

156408

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 156408 COA: 330359 Berrien CC: 2014

- 004247

- FH KEVIN PATRICK KAVANAUGH, Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On November 19, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the July 6, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

W ILDER , J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

I concur in denying appellant’s application for leave to appeal, but diss ent from the majority’s decision to leave intact those aspects of the published Court of Appeals opinion holding or implying that when the trial court’s findings are based in part on facts established by video evidence, a trial court’s factual findings are entitled to less deference on appellate review. Instead, I would reiterate that factual findings of the trial court are reviewed for clear error. MCR 2.613(C); People v Bylsma , 493 Mich 17, 26 (2012) (“A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing cour t is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Court of Appeals judgment states in part that “we need not rely on the trial

court’s conclusions as to what the vide otape contains.” People v Kavanaugh , 320 Mich App 293, 298 (2017). In the present case, the trial court declined to review the video before ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress. It is also unclear from the record the degree to

which the trial court relied on the video evidence in denying defendant’s renewed motion to suppress. In my judgment, because there is uncertainty regarding whether the trial court made factual findings based on the video, to the extent the trial court’s factual findings

were based on the video, the Court of Appeals could not haveI, 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.

December 27, 2018

p1226 2

Clerk reviewed those factual findings for clear error. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ assertion that it “need not rely on the trial court’s conclusions as to what the videotape contains” is obiter dictum that creates confusion about the appropriate standard o f review of trial court factual findings. I believe that this statement is best vacated to avoid allowing an erroneous statement of law to have precedential effect pursuant to MCR 7.215(C)(2).

M ARKMAN , C.J., joins the statement of W ILDER , J.