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

September 24, 2012

d0917

Order 

September 24, 2012

144662(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144662

COA: 307264 

Mecosta CC: 10-006998-FC

CLIFFORD LEE CRYSLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 25, 2012 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Bernie J. Hoing, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Pengram Corporation (the Company), hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2007, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        



| | By:    | /s/
      Bernie J. Hoing  
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | BERNIE J. HOING            
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | July 16, 2007              
| |        |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0128. DANIEL W. TAYLOR v. GREGORY A. ADAMS, et al.

Daniel Taylor filed this application for discretionary review, seeking to appeal

two court orders denying his requests to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose

of seeking mandamus relief against several defendants. We lack jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all casesinvolving

extraordinary remedies, including mandamus. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec.

VI, Par. III (5); Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264, 264 (626 SE2d 83) (2006) (“[C]ases

involving the grant or denial of mandamus are within the exclusive jurisdiction of

[the Supreme] Court without regard to the underlying subject matter or the legal

issues raised.” (punctuation omitted)). Accordingly, this case is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

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.

11/30/2015

November 30, 2015
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00329-CV

In re Daniel Alan Sliger

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The pending petition for writ of mandamus is denied.1

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Filed: July 1, 2016

 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

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 this Quarterly Report of Promotions On Wheels Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry Van Wie, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.



By:   /s/ Barry Van Wie

Barry Van Wie

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Accounting Officer



Dated: August 2, 2007
EX-10.18






Exhibit 10.18




Compensation of Outside Directors




     Cash Compensation. Each of our outside Directors is paid $50,000 in cash compensation
annually, which is payable quarterly in advance, and also receives the following additional cash
compensation as applicable:




Standing Committee Membership





	 	•	 	Each member of the Audit Committee, $15,000 annually;
	 
	 	•	 	Each member of the Compensation Committee, $5,000 annually; and
	 
	 	•	 	Each member of the Nominating and Governance Committee, $5,000
annually.





Chairman Position





	 	•	 	Chairman of the Board, $100,000 annually; and
	 
	 	•	 	Chairman of each of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and
the Nominating and Governance Committee, $25,000 annually.





Meeting Fees





	 	•	 	For each meeting of the Board or a Committee of the Board, including any ad hoc
committee, attended in person by a member, a fee to such member of $1,500 or $3,000 if
such member is its Chairman;
	 
	 	•	 	For each meeting of the Board or a Committee of the Board, including any ad hoc
committee, attended via teleconference or videoconference, a fee to each such member of
$500 or $1,000 if such member is its Chairman; and
	 
	 	•	 	For each meeting of the Board or a Committee of the Board, including any ad hoc
committee, attended in person by a member, all customary out-of-pocket expenses of such
member are reimbursed.





Polar Board Compensation




     Eugene I. Davis, our Chairman, was elected Chairman of Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc.
(“Polar”) on June 28, 2007. In light of his increased responsibility resulting from the assumption
of this position, beginning June 28, 2007, Mr. Davis receives an annual cash retainer of $50,000
(payable quarterly) and meeting fees in respect of meetings of the Polar Board of Directors
consistent with the meeting fees paid to the Company’s Directors for Company Board and Committee
meetings as described




 









 







above. Except for Mr. Davis, no other person is compensated by the Company for serving as a
Director of Polar.




Equity Compensation




     Restricted Stock Units. Each of our Directors (other than Mr. Flynn) receives an annual grant
of restricted stock units for a number of shares having a value (calculated based on the closing
price of the Common Stock on the date of grant) of $100,000 ($175,000 in the case of Mr. Davis).
The shares vest on the earlier of the date of the Company’s next succeeding annual meeting of
stockholders or on the one-year anniversary of the date of grant.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 149 (Friday, August 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-78-000]


Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Company of 
Indiana, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 18, 2008, the Commonwealth Edison Company 
and Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. (collectively, ComEd) 
tendered for filing a Petition for Declaratory Order for Incentive Rate 
Treatment.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a1c1f081915343633343f092f2a2a35282e1a3c3f2839743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="10565542535f7e7c797e75436560607f626450767562733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 18, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17626 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Certification
of Principal Financial Officer
 Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 and
Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427
   I, Samuel
J. Alderson, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of 1st Home Buy & Sell
Ltd.;
  2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
  3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
  4. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
  a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
  b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;
  c)
disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting the occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and
  5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a) all
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
  b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date:
      May 14, 2008
              
              /s/
      Samuel J. AldersonSamuel
      J. Alderson
                Principal
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1653

G. JOSEPH BELLEFEUILLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-3743-9-17BD)

Submitted: December 21, 2000 Decided: January 9, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Layne Birdsong, RICHARDSON & BIRDSONG, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J.

Rene Josey, United States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief

Counsel, Michele M. Kelley, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Bellefeuille appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Bellefeuille’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Bellefeuille v. Apfel, No. CA-98-3743-9-

17BD (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2000). 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
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 19

- 3211

_____________________________ C ITY OF T ALLAHASSEE , a Florida

m unicipal c orporation , Petitioner ,

v.
M ICHAEL L. R OSEN , e t a l. , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 25, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.
R AY , C.J., and W OLF and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Edwin R. Hudson and Luke J. Grabowski of Henry Buchanan, P.A., Tallahassee , for Petitioner

. J. Stanley Chapman of Fixel & Willis, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARGARET DAYTON and 

EVERETT JONES,

 Plaintiffs Below,

 Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

 v.

WILLIAM COLLISON,

Defendant Below,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 230, 2020

Court Below – Superior Court

of the State of Delaware

 C.A. No. N17C-08-100

 Submitted: March 24, 2021

Decided: April 14, 2021

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

On this 14th day of April, 2021, the Court, having considered this matter on 

the briefs filed by the parties and the record on appeal, has determined that the 

judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned by the Superior Court in its September 24, 2019 opinion and its June 22, 

2020 memorandum opinion.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is 

AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20137

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

ERIK K. KJELLAN,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On May 13, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties,

Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me

on May 13, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath, confirmed his consent,

and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by

Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s

answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 

2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly and intelligently made, and 3) that the offense to which

he pled is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of

the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

1:09-cr-20137-TLL-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 05/14/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 47
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: May 14, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Norman Donker and Eric Proschek, and served on Pretrial Services,

the Probation Department and District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: May 14, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:09-cr-20137-TLL-CEB Doc # 16 Filed 05/14/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 48
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3768

AN ACT

To designate a United States Post Office to be lo-

‘Gusty’ Hornblower United States Post Office’’.cated in Groton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Augusta
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3768

AN ACT

To designate a United States Post Office to be located in

Groton, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Augusta ‘Gusty’ Hornblower United States Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3768 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The United States Post Office to be located at 80

3 Boston Road in Groton, Massachusetts, shall be des4 ignated and known as the ‘‘Augusta ‘Gusty’ Hornblower

5 United States Post Office’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

9 States Post Office referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Augusta ‘Gusty’ Hornblower

11 United States Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.