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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

N & W COMMODITIES, 

d/b/a U.S. Express, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-11366—PJD-RSW 

vs. Hon. PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, 

 Defendant. / 

KIM CORBIN, PLLC U.S. Attorney’s Office 

KIM CORBIN P39273 Theresa Urbanic P68005 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 

15206 Mack Ave. 211 W. Fort Street, Ste 2001 

Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230 Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 886-4466 Fax: (313) 886-4744 (313)226-9778 

Corbinlaw@comcast.net Theresa.Urbanic@usdoj.gov

 / 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 As appears from their signatures below the parties stipulate and agree to entry of the Order 

for Dismissal Without Prejudice. The parties further stipulate that each party will bear its own fees, 

costs, and expenses.

 

 /s/ 

KIM CORBIN P39273 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

TERRENCE BERG 

United States Attorney 

 /s/ 

THERESA URBANIC P68005 

Assistant United States Attorney 

 

 

2:09-cv-11366-PJD-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 12/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 94
2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

N & W COMMODITIES, 

d/b/a U.S. Express, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-11366—PJD-RSW 

vs. Hon. PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, 

 Defendant. / 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 At a session of said Court 

 held: December 4, 2009. 

 Present Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties as appears from their signatures of counsel 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice and 

without cost to any party. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: December 4, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on 

December 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

 

2:09-cv-11366-PJD-RSW Doc # 12 Filed 12/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 95
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 23 - 0745 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RONALD LEWIS AMELINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 28 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2024

05/20/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0745
exhibit_10-12.htm








EXHIBIT 10.12


 





 


 




  





1











  






 


 





 


 




  





2











  






 


 





 


 




  





3











  






 


 





 


4
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN CHILENKO and

LOIS CHILENKO,

Plaintiffs, CASE NUMBER: 09-12247

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICING, INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 15, 2011, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen submitted a Report

and Recommendation (Doc. 35) recommending that the Court GRANT Defendant

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26). 

Because the Court has not received objections from either party within the time

frame provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d), the Court

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and GRANTS

Defendant’s motion.

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: March 7, 2011

2:09-cv-12247-VAR-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 336
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

March 7, 2011.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12247-VAR-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 03/07/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 337
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16I0185. STEVEN J. SABINO v. JOSEPH R. SABINO.

Joseph R. Sabino filed an action for conversion against Steven J. Sabino.

Joseph Sabino filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the trial court

granted. Steven Sabino appeals the trial court’s order.

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as

to any party isreviewable by direct appeal. City of Demorest v. Town of Mt. Airy, 282

Ga. 653, 654 n.1 (653 SE2d 43) (2007); Whiddon v. Stargell, 192 Ga. App. 826, 827-

28 (386 SE2d 884) (1989). Ordinarily, we will grant a timely application for

interlocutory appeal if the order complained of is subject to direct appeal and the

applicant has not otherwise filed a timely notice of appeal. Spivey v. Hembree, 268

Ga. App. 485, 486 n.1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). But the application must be timely.

Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only

if the trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate

review should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that

ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until final

judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 176

(200 SE2d 748) (1973). Here, the order granting partial summary judgment was

entered on March 14, 2016, but the certificate of immediate review was not entered

until 14 days later on March 28, 2014. Although the trial court signed the certificate

of immediate review on March 23, 2016, the relevant date for determining the

timeliness of the certificate is the date it was entered. See Van Schallern v. Stanco,

130 Ga. App. 687 (204 SE2d 317) (1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review

of a nonfinal or interlocutory judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with

May 03, 2016
the clerk, within ten days after entry of the judgment appealed from.”). Because the

trial court did not enter the certificate of immediate review within ten days of entry

of the order at issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

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.

05/03/2016
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
 RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the annual report of Axis Technologies Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Erickson, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal 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:
 
 (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:
      December 23, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      James EricksonJames
      EricksonPrincipal
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements listed in the following table pertaining to the named plans of Dan River Inc. of our report
dated February 20, 2004, except for Note 1 and paragraphs 2-5, 8 and 18 of Note 5, as to which the date is April 1, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Dan River Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended January 3, 2004:



|             |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Form S-8 No. |  | Plan                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|333-67083    |  | The Bibb Company 1997 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan, Dan River Inc., Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan, as Amended, Dan River Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, Dan River Inc. 1997 Stock
Plan for Outside Directors;
|             | 
|333-36542    |  | Dan River Inc. 2000 Long-term Incentive Plan                                                                                                                                                                           
|             | 
|333-52458    |  | Dan River Inc. Nonqualified 401(k) and Deferred Compensation Plan for Highly Compensated Employees and Directors                                                                                                       
|             | 
|333-106108   |  | Dan River Inc. 2003 Long-term Incentive Plan                                                                                                                                                                           



We also consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-76035) of Dan River Inc. and the related Prospectus of our report dated February 20, 2004, except for Note 1 and paragraphs 2-5, 8 and 18 of Note 5, as to which the date is April 1, 2004,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Dan River Inc. in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 3, 2004.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Greensboro, North Carolina

April 16, 2004
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James L. CROOKS, Appellant.

No. WD 51531.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 27, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 1, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 19, 1996.

*877James R. Wyrsch, Michael P. Joyce, Wyrsch, Atwell, Marakian, Lee and Hobbs, P.C., Kansas City, for appellant,

Richard G. Callahan, Pros. Atty., William Tackett, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cole County, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., P.J., and SPINDEN and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

James L. Crooks appeals his conviction of the class A misdemeanor of attempt to commit the offense of sexual abuse in the first degree in violation of section 564.011, RSMo 1994.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### Karl SCHROCK, Appellant, v. LAMM CONSTRUCTION, Respondent.

No. WD 48116.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 7, 1993.

Henri J. Watson and James M. Dowd, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeff F. Stigall, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a decision denying workers’ compensation benefits.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of MASS HYSTERIA ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, INC. on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Grodnik, Chief Executive Officer and 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:





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





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








Date: July 15, 2010




By: /s/ Daniel Grodnik Daniel Grodnik CEO, CFO, Principal Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin HAMMERSCHMIDT, Appellant.

No. 69829.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Rosalynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kevin Hammerschmidt, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County after a jury convicted him of second degree burglary, RSMo § 569.170 (1994). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the decision of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision is attached for the use of the parties involved.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT LEOPOLDO SANCHEZ ALVAREZ, ) DOC #C12358, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1755 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 8, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark Carpanini, Judge. Howard L. Dimming, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Leopoldo S. Alvarez, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43120

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

SARAH JOANN FENCL ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 305

Filed: January 6, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Befor e MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Sarah Joann Fencl pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . Idaho Code §§ 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(9) with sentencing enhancement, I.C. § 19

- 2514 . The district court sentenced

Fencl to unified sentence of fifteen years with five years determinate

. Fencl appeals asserting
that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Fencl ’s judgm ent of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-73,015-17

EX PARTE WILLIE HENRY III, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 98575-H IN THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault

and sentenced to prison. He is currently on parole release. In his habeas application, Applicant

complains of a parole condition—Special Condition X—that the Parole Board imposed on him. 

This parole condition is regularly applied to sex offenders. Applicant, however, was

convicted of aggravated assault, and the habeas record does not show any other convictions.

Applicant complains that he was not afforded adequate due process in the Parole Board’s decision

to impose Special Condition X.
-2-

A parolee who has not been convicted of a sex offense must be afforded procedural due

process before sex-offender conditions may be imposed upon him. See Ex parte Evans, 338 S.W.3d

545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). It appears from the habeas record that there was notice and disclosure

of evidence to Applicant before the Parole Board applied the sex-offender condition. It remains

unclear whether there was a hearing or if a hearing was waived and whether Applicant was afforded

due process in connection with that hearing (e.g, permitted to call and confront witnesses).

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. There is no response from

the Parole Board in the habeas record provided to this Court. In these circumstances, additional facts

are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the

trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice’s Office of the General Counsel to file an affidavit addressing the

issue of whetherApplicant was provided adequate due process in connection with the Parole Board’s

decision to impose Special Condition X. 

After obtaining the affidavit, the trial court maymake furtherfindings of fact and conclusions

of law regarding the claims raised in the habeas application. The trial court may also make any other

findings of fact and conclusions of law it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of

Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall be
-3-

obtained from this Court.

Filed: October 24, 2018

Do not publish
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic Financial, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




---



##### 



/s/ D. James DarasName:
    D. James DarasTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
Power of Attorney


 


I, _____________, a
PRC citizen with Chinese Identification Card No.: ______________, and a holder of 6% of the aggregate registered capital in Henan
Law Anhou Insurance Agency Co., Ltd. ("Anhou") ("My Shareholding"), hereby irrevocably authorize
Zhengzhou Zhonglian Hengfu Business Consulting Co., Ltd., a wholly foreign owned enterprise duly registered under the laws of PRC
("WFOE") to exercise the following rights relating to My Shareholding during the term of this Power of Attorney:


 


WFOE is hereby authorized
to act on behalf of myself as my exclusive agent and attorney with respect to all matters concerning My Shareholding, including
without limitation to: 1) attend shareholders' meetings of Anhou; 2) exercise all the shareholder's rights and shareholder's voting
rights I am entitled to under the laws of PRC and Anhou's Articles of Association, including but not limited to the sale or transfer
or pledge or disposition of My Shareholding in part or in whole; and 3) designate and appoint on behalf of myself the legal representative,
the director, supervisor, the chief executive officer and other senior management members of Anhou.


 


Without limiting the
generality of the powers granted hereunder, WFOE shall have the power and authority under this Power of Attorney to execute the
Transfer Contracts stipulated in Exclusive Option Agreement, to which I am required to be a party, on behalf of myself, and to
effect the terms of the Share Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Option Agreement, both dated the date hereof, to which I am a party.


 


All the actions
associated with My Shareholding conducted by WFOE shall be deemed as my own actions, and all the documents related to My Shareholding
executed by WFOE shall be deemed to be executed by me. I hereby acknowledge and ratify those actions and/or documents by WFOE.


 


WFOE is entitled to
re-authorize or assign its rights related to the aforesaid matters to any other person or entity at its own discretion and without
giving prior notice to me or obtaining my consent.


 


This Power of Attorney
is coupled with an interest and shall be irrevocable and continuously valid from the date of execution of this Power of Attorney,
so long as I am a shareholder of Anhou.


 


During the term of this
Power of Attorney, I hereby waive all the rights associated with My Shareholding, which have been authorized to WFOE through this
Power of Attorney, and shall not exercise such rights by myself.


 


This Power of Attorney
shall become effective upon my execution.


 


	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 
	 	Date: October 24, 2013