alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 7, 2017

v No. 331306 Crawford Circuit Court HENRY LEE FLAKES, LC No. 15-003898-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and M ETER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals as of right his conviction following a jury trial of four counts of aiding and abetting identity theft, MCL 445.65(1)(a)( ii ) and MCL 767.39. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, fourth offence, MCL 769.12, to a prison term of 48 months to 20 years for each offense, to be served concurrently. Defendant’s convictio ns arose out of his participation with Douglas Adair and Amir Jarden in a scheme to withdraw mone y from a bank account. Jarden was also convicted by a jury in a separate trial and app eals separately in Docket No. 329148; Adair was convicted followi ng a guilty plea that entail ed his testimony at both trials, and he has not appealed. Defenda nt does not challenge his conv ictions on appeal, but rather only his sentence. We vacate his sentence and remand for resentenci ng.
As an initial matter, the prosecutor concedes that defendant i s entitled to resentencing because notice of his sentence enhancement was not timely filed under MCL 769.13(1). The 21- day limit is “a bright-line test for determining whether a pros ecutor has filed a supplemental information ‘promptly,’” People v Ellis , 224 Mich App 752, 754-755; 569 NW2d 917 (1997), and if it is not timely filed, no enhancement is permitted. Se e People v Bollinger , 224 Mich App 491; 569 NW2d 646 (1997). Because the habitual offender notice was not filed within the 21- day period, defendant is therefor e entitled to resentencing wit hout the enhancement.

We recognize that defendant has properly preserved and present ed a challenge to the trial court’s scoring of Offense Var iable 10. Because we are remandi ng for resentencing, we decline to consider this argument, and no opinion thereon should be imp lied or construed. We deem defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel to be moot in light of our remand and the complete l ack of any evidence that any plea discussion ever occurred.-2- Defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter remanded for res entencing. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause /s/ Peter D. O'Connell /s/ Patrick M. Meter
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-2018-0025-2669

Reelcraft Industries:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCUS LORENZO GASKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:03-cr-00015-F-l)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Lorenzo Gaskins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Marcus Lorenzo Gaskins appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion seeking clarification of
restitution and fines imposed in his criminal judgment. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Gaskins , No. 7:03-cr-00015-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23,
2008). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL REPORT
ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,661,310
<SECURITIES>                                   693,279
<RECEIVABLES>                                  676,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,368,461
<PP&E>                                       6,832,740
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,208,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,965,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,266,836
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 33,853,380
<COMMON>                                       122,514
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,926,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,965,059
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,302,225
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,841,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,539,061)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,539,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,539,061)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)


</TABLE>
#### Shane PACK *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-1358

983 S.W.2d 125

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered December 10, 1998

*375
      *Clarence W. Cash,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Shane Pack, by his attorney, Clarence W. Cash, has filed two motions for belated appeal, which are, in reality, motions for rule on the clerk.

The first motion admits that the record was not timely filed from counsel’s notice of appeal and that this was error. The second motion asks that the first motion be set aside because a second notice of appeal was filed by the public defender, and the record would be timely if calculated from that date. Mr. Cash contends that only the public defender was counsel of record when the two notices of appeal were filed.

This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on the clerk when the attorney admits that the record was not timely filed due to an error on his or her part. *See, e.g., Tarry v. State,*288 Ark. 172, 702 S.W.2d 804 (1986). Here, the attorney’s second motion does not admit fault on his part. Rather, he argues that he was not counsel of record when he filed his notice of appeal and that the subsequent notice of appeal filed by the public defender as counsel of record was timely. We disagree. Mr. Cash filed the first notice of appeal as counsel for the appellant and that notice of appeal governs. The record was, therefore, untimely, and appellant’s motion must be denied.

The appellant’s attorney shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the transcript, and upon filing same, the motion will be granted and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

The present motions for rule on the clerk are denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                            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 Quarterly Report of Deep Field Technologies, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark
Meller, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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: November 10, 2005


                                             By /s/ Mark Meller
                                             ---------------------
                                             Mark Meller
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Principal Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4694

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3229

WTEC Texas, 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
#### Franklin J. Long, Petitioner, v Board of Education of the North Syracuse Central School District et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: There is substantial evidence in the record to support respondent’s determination that petitioner, a mechanic, was guilty of misconduct and incompetence in the performance of his work. We cannot say on this record that the penalty of dismissal was improper *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 237). We reject petitioner’s argument that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair hearing because he was not sufficiently apprised of the charges against him. In our view, the charges were sufficiently specific to enable him to prepare his defense *(see, Matter of Fitzgerald v Libous,*44 NY2d 660; *Matter of Buffalo Mem. Chapels v Axelrod,*152 AD2d 969; *Matter of Bahouth v Sardino,*125 AD2d 990, 991; *cf., Montrois v City of Watertown,*115 AD2d 298, *appeal dismissed*67 NY2d 757). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Marlin Business Services Corp.

Compensation Policy for Non-Employee Independent Directors




Non-Employee Independent Directors of Marlin Business Services Corp. (the “Company”) are eligible
to receive compensation for their time and service participating on the Company’s Board of
Directors and Committees.





	 
	•	 	A one-time initial option grant of 5,000 shares will
be made to each Non-Employee Independent Director
upon such Director’s first-time election/appointment
to the Company’s Board of Directors.1    

	 
	•	 	Each Non-Employee Independent Director will
receive the following annual compensation for
their Board and Committee memberships:







	 	•	 	Annual retainer2 — $100,000 for Chairman of the Board and $30,000 for each other Non-Employee Independent Director

	 
	 	•	 	Restricted stock grant yielding a present value of $41,000 for Chairman of the Board and $36,000 for each other Non-Employee
Independent Director3







	 
	•	 	The Committee Chairmen will also be paid the following amounts each year 4:         






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	•
	 	Audit Committee Chairman	 	$	10,000	 
	•
	 	Compensation Committee Chairman	 	$	4,000	 
	•
	 	Nominating/Governance Committee Chairman	 	$	2,000	 







	•	 	Non-Employee Independent Director ownership requirement:







	 	•	 	Each Non-Employee Independent Director shall be required to own 2,500
shares of Company stock (or 7,500 shares if serving as Chairman of the
Board). Restricted shares do not count toward the ownership
requirement.






 






	 	 	 
	1	 	These options will have a seven year term and will vest pro-rata over four
years from the grant date (one-quarter of the total grant per year).

	 
	2	 	This retainer shall be paid in quarterly installments.

	 
	3	 	Restricted stock grants will vest at the earlier of (a) seven years from the
grant gate and (b) six months following the Non-Employee Independent Director’s termination of
Board service.

	 
	4	 	These fees shall be paid in quarterly installments
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher DUKE, Appellant.

No. WD 47578.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and HANNA and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from conviction of offering violence to a corrections officer, § 217.385, RSMo Cum.Supp.1992.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
---

EXHIBIT 32.2 
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of SOLAR ENERTECH CORP. (the Company")
  on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I, Fang Xie,
  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|Date: April 20, 2007 | By: | /s/Fang Xie                
|-------------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|                     |     |                            
|                     |     | Fang Xie                   
|                     |     | Principal Financial Officer

---
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George BRITTON, Jr., Appellant.

No. WD 50357.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 5, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1995.

Kimberley Keñogg, Leawood, Kan., for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*207Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

George Britton appeals his conviction of one count of first degree robbery, *section 569.020, RSMo 199k,*and one count of armed criminal action, *section 571.015 RSMo 199k,*after a jury trial. Mr. Britton was sentenced to 10 years and 3 years incarceration, respectively, the sentences to run concurrently. This court finds no precedential value in publishing a written opinion, and the convictions and sentences are affirmed by summary order. A memorandum opinion is provided to the parties.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4303 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4303

   To provide for a period of exclusivity for first interchangeable 
                          biological products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2022

Mr. Kaine (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a period of exclusivity for first interchangeable 
                          biological products.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Interchangeable Biologics Clarity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATIONS TO EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS FOR FIRST 
              INTERCHANGEABLE BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS.

    Section 351(k)(6) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
262(k)(6)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by striking ``Upon review of'' and inserting 
                ``The Secretary shall not make approval effective of'';
                    (B) by striking ``relying on'' and inserting ``for 
                an interchangeable biological product that relies on''; 
                and
                    (C) by striking ``the Secretary shall not make a 
                determination under paragraph (4) that the second or 
                subsequent biological product is interchangeable for 
                any condition of use''; and
            (2) in the flush text that follows subparagraph (C), by 
        striking the period and inserting ``, and the term `first 
        interchangeable biosimilar biological product' means any 
        interchangeable biosimilar biological product that is approved 
        on the first day on which such a product is approved as 
        interchangeable with the reference product.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Cary W. LANG, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., and Union Pacific Railroad Co., Defendants/Appellants.

No. 65373.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 1, 1994.

Stephen M. Buckley, St. Louis, for appellants.

Jerome J. Schliehter, Robert S. Bogard, Steven L. Groves, Schliehter, Bogard, & Denton, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried ease, defendants appeal a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $185,000 in an action pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, *et seq.*

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).