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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 127923 & (76)(77)(78) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127923 COA: 247182 Calhoun CC: 02-000035-FC DOUGLAS CHARLE S WOODARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the December 9, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions for miscellaneous relief are DENIED.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated ALH Holding Inc. Stock Incentive



 Exhibit 10.1 

Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated ALH Holding Inc. Stock Incentive Plan 

THIS AMENDMENT to the Amended and Restated ALH Holding Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of
April 22, 2010. 
 1. Stock Subject to the Plan. Section 5.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its
entirety: 
 5.1 Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 5.3, the number of shares of Common
Stock subject to Options under the Plan may not exceed 200,000 shares. The shares of Common Stock to be delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of shares held in treasury or authorized but unissued shares not reserved for any
other purpose. 
 *    *    * 

In all other respects, the form, terms and provisions of the Plan remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JACEK KOZMINSKI and BARBARA KOZMINSKI, Appellants,

v. CHRISTIAN B. KOEPPEN, deceased, and EDITH E. KOEPPEN, as trustees on behalf of the Christian B. Koeppen and Edith E. Koeppen Revocable Trust dated April 5, 2016; JOY BROWN; and BRAD BROWN, Appellees.

No. 2D23-1575

March 8, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Thomas M. Ramsberger, Judge. Cristen Heather Martinez of Martinez Law, P.A., Lutz, for Appellants. Cary A. Cash of Freeman, Goldis & Cash, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee Christian B. Koeppen, deceased, and Edith E. Koeppen, as trustees on behalf of the Christian B. Koeppen and Edith E. Koeppen Revocable Trust dated April 5, 2016. No appearance for the remaining Appellees. MORRIS, Judge. Jacek and Barbara Kozminski appeal from a final order granting specific performance of a contract for the sale of residential real property2

and requiring them to sell the subject property to Christian B. and Edith E. Koeppen, as trustees on behalf of the Christian B. Koeppen and Edith E. Koeppen Revocable Trust, dated April 5, 2016. We need not address all of the issues raised by the Kozminskis as appellee Edith E. Koeppen has properly conceded error. 1 Pursuant to Parkland Condominium Ass'n v. Henderson, 350 So. 3d 484, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), the mediated settlement agreement in this case was not enforceable because the Kozminskis did not sign it. 2 We therefore reverse the final order and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

1 Christian B. Koeppen is now deceased.
2 The agreement was also not signed by the Kozminskis' former counsel, who represented them at the time of the mediation, or the mediator.
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 Juma Technology, Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Giangano,
      the Chief Executive 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, 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.


/s/ David
                GianganoDavid
                    Giangano
                  Chief
                    Executive Officer


May
      18,
      2007
#### WARE *v.*BANK OF POWDER SPRINGS *et al.*

An order denying an application to modify an interlocutory injunction, and to allow the applicant to file a statutory claim to land, was matter for exception pendente lite; not for direct writ of error.

No. 2880.

September 16, 1922.

Petition, to modify injunction, etc. Before Judge Irwin. Paulding superior court. September 26, 1921.

*n. B. Moss,*for plaintiff in error. *Morris & Hawhins,*contra.

Per Curiam.

A. B. Ware and John D. Wáre filed an equitable petition against the Bank of Powder Springs, seeking to restrain that bank from enforcing certain fi. fas. against them. Pending the hearing Mrs. Armilda Ware filed her intervention setting up an equitable claim to the land. At the interlocutory hearing the intervenor moved to dismiss the intervention. This motion was overruled. In its answer to the petition the bank prayed for an injunction against the petitioners and the intervenor. The prayer of the petitioners and the intervenor was refused; but the court granted an injunction against petitioners and Mrs. Ware, restraining them from interfering with a sale of the land by the sheriffs. This order was not excepted to; but subsequently Mrs. Ware filed an application for a modification of the ’ injunction granted by the court against her, and prayed that she might be allowed to file a statutory claim. Upon hearing this application the judge passed the following order: “Upon considering the within motion for modification of the former order in said case, rendered August 18, 1921, the same is hereby refused, and the modification of the order and prayer for the right to file her statutory claim denied.” This motion was one for modification of an interlocutory injunction, and the order above set forth as passed by the court was one refusing a modification of an interlocutory injunction. A judgment of this character is not one that can be brought to the Supreme Court for review by direct bill of exceptions, but should be made the subject of pendente-lite exceptions duly presented and filed. This being true, the- bill of exceptions in the case must be dismissed. *Smith*v. *Willis,*107 *Ga.*792 (33 S. E. 667); *Ragan*v. *Ragan,*118 *Ga.*151 (96 S. E. 96).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Ball, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with memorandum, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for a new trial on that count of the indictment charging rape, first degree. Memorandum: Defendant and two codefendants were convicted of burglary, robbery, rape, assault, and larceny. The charges arose from a break-in at the home of an elderly woman. Defendant’s conviction of first degree rape must be reversed, the sentence vacated, and a new trial granted on that count of the indictment because the court failed to give the circumstantial evidence charge requested by defendant. Defendant was entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge embodying the "moral certainty” standard because the evidence of his involvement in the rape was entirely circumstantial *(see, People v Cleague,*22 NY2d 363, 365-366). The testimony that semen was found in the victim’s vagina and that defendant was seen leaving the victim’s residence is not direct evidence of defendant’s commission of the rape. The court’s failure to give the requested charge is not harmless because the proof of defendant’s guilt of rape was less than overwhelming and there is a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant of first degree rape had the proper charge been given *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242). Defendant did not preserve for review his claim regarding the court’s failure to so charge with respect to the other crimes. In any event, because there was direct evidence of defendant’s guilt of those crimes, the "moral certainty” standard does not apply *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 380).

The verdict convicting defendant of burglary, robbery, assault and larceny was supported by the evidence. The proof established that defendant was present in the victim’s home when the crimes occurred, that he possessed property stolen *990from the victim, and that he and codefendants shared a common plan to commit the crimes charged. Whether defendant acted as the principal perpetrator or as an accomplice is irrelevant with respect to his criminal liability as charged in the indictment *(see,*Penal Law § 20.00; *People v Duncan,*46 NY2d 74, 79-80, *cert denied*442 US 910). The evidence established that defendant and codefendants acted with coordinated effort and mutual purpose *(see, People v Ford,*66 NY2d 428, 437; *People v Nelson,*110 AD2d 858, 859).

Defendant’s *Batson*claim *(see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79) was untimely raised *(see, People v Harris,*151 AD2d 961, 962) and on this record we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

We have considered the remaining claims raised by assigned counsel and defendant, *pro se,*and find that none requires reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
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-2018-0025-5320

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 American Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
statutory business trust Series I (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year
ending March 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of
Richman American Credit Corp., manager of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Neal Ludeke
--------------------------------------
Neal Ludeke
Chief Financial Officer of Richman American
Credit Corp., Manager of the Registrant
July 13, 2004
#### Jimmy R. JORDAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO, et al., Respondent. Jimmy R. JORDAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO, et al., Respondent.

Nos. WD 52028, WD 52266.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 3, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 17,1996.

Jimmy Jordan, Grand Prairie, TX, Pro Se.

Lana K. Torczon, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, for Respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and the respondent’s motion to dismiss. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Simmons, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered January 9, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, 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-2018-0025-3890

Yaesu USA 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
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-2018-0025-4416

CW Bearing USA, 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/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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5153

Nissan 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
---

---

# EXHIBIT 13.2

# 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 Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the period
ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Tal Payne, principal financial officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 139a) 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Tal Payne 
Chief Financial Officer V.P. FinanceDecember 1, 2005 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

103

---

---
----

----

| 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. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:   |  /s/ Kenneth Glynn                                          |
|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       |        Kenneth Glynn               |
|       |        President              |
|       |        Chief Executive Officer and |
|       |        Chief Financial Officer     |
|       |                                                             |
|       | January 10, 2011                                                 |

----

----
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-2018-0025-4860

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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 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
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 JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Colorado
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Lindsay E. Gorrill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
              The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
 
 (2)
              The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and result of operations of the
Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
JayHawk Energy, Inc., and will be retained by JayHawk Energy, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
 
 /s/
      Lindsay GorrillLindsay
      Gorrill
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
                    February
      12, 2009