alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

p0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

141056

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141056 COA: 297035 Jackson CC: 08-004976-FH MAURICE ONEIL COSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
191 La. 556

#### Rene McDANIEL v. Emile LUDEAU et al.

No. 34875.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1939.

Philo Coco, of Marksville, and Chester Coco, of Ville Platte, for appellant.

McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, and Atlee P. Steckler and Roland B. Reed, both of Ville Platte, for appellees.

O’NIELL,- Chief Justice.

The issue in this case is the same as in the case of Mrs. Emma Rosa Tate Fontenot v. Emile Ludeau et al., La.Sup., 186 So. 21. For the .reasons given in the opinion rendered in that case, the judgment .appealed from in this case is annulled, and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion referred to. The defendants are to pay the costs of this appeal. The liability for all other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
Line Company, LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David J. Kvapil, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
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:

      (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

      (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 J. KVAPIL
----------------------------
Name: David J. Kvapil
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 14, 2004
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-33938,
No. 333-43196, No. 333-44128, and No. 333-58916) and on Form S-8 (No. 33-76324,
No. 333-09135, No. 333-57141, No. 333-40940 and No. 333-65084) of NMS Communications Corporation (formerly, Natural
MicroSystems Corporation) of our report dated March 18, 2003 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 24, 2003

---

QuickLinks
ORDER-1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LILES PARKER PLLC,

 Plaintiff

 v.

HARVEST BANK OF MARYLAND

 Defendant.

__________________________________________

No. 11-cv-1821 (BJR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS COUNT II OF THE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the court is Defendant Harvest Bank of Maryland’s (“Defendant”) Motion to 

Dismiss Count II of the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9.). Having reviewed the motion, 

the opposition, and the reply thereto, as well as the relevant case law, the court hereby finds and 

rules as follows.

This case involves a fee dispute between a law firm and its former client. Plaintiff Liles 

Parker PLLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant breached the terms of the parties’ Engagement 

Letter. Plaintiff seeks $101,417.96 in damages, plus interest and costs. 
ORDER-2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: (1) Count I—Breach of Contract; and (2) Count 

II—Quantum Meruit. Defendant moves to dismiss the quantum meruit claim, asserting that such 

claims can only exist in the absence of a written agreement between the parties and when equity 

renders it unjust for one party to retain money paid, or to not pay for services rendered. (Dkt. No. 

9 at 1.). Here, Plaintiff alleges the existence of a written agreement and incorporates the 

allegation into Count II. Id. at 1-2.

Plaintiff counters that the quantum meruit claim is alleged in the alternative to the breach 

of contract claim, and that such a pleading is consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1 citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(3).). Plaintiff argues that in the event he 

is unable to establish that a valid contract exists, he would be entitled to prosecute the unjust 

enrichment claim. However, Defendant answered Count I of the Amended Complaint (on the 

same day that it filed is reply to the instant motion) and admitted the existence of a valid contract 

between the parties. (Dkt. No. 12 at 1.).

In light of Defendant’s admission, the court will dismiss Count II of the First Amended 

Complaint. See Harrington v. Trotman, 983 A.2d 342, 346-47 (D.C. 2009) (homeowner could 

not recover damages against contractor on unjust enrichment theory where parties’ relationship is

governed by written agreement); Schiff v. American Ass’n of Retired Persons, 697 A.2d 1193, 

1194 (D.C. 1997) (“[T]here can be no claim for unjust enrichment when an express contract 

exists between the parties.”).

Based on the foregoing, Count II of the First Amended Complaint is hereby 
ORDER-3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein

U.S. District Court Judge

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2012.

A
#### Linda FIELDS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-16689.

D.C. No. CV-01-01648-DFL/DAD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*946Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Linda Fields appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Standard Insurance Company (“Standard”), in her action alleging that Standard violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by denying her claim for long-term disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of the abuse of discretion standard and its conclusion that a plan fiduciary has not abused its discretion. *See Lang v. Long-Term Disability Plan of Sponsor Applied Remote Tech.,*125 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.1997).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly determined that defendant did not abuse its discretion by terminating Fields’ benefits, *see Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc.,*45 F.3d 1317, 1323-25 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

Fields failed to establish that the administrator operated under a conflict of *947interest because she did not provide “material, probative evidence” that the fiduciary’s self interest caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary obligation to the beneficiary. *See Lang,*125 F.3d at 798.

Substantial evidence supports the administrator’s decision to reject the opinions of Fields’ treating physicians based on the contrary determinations of examining physicians and because the treating physicians’ opinions were “brief [and] eonclusory,” *see Thomas v. Barnhart,*278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002), and lacked objective clinical findings, *see Tonapetyan v. Halter,*242 F.3d 1144,1149 (9th Cir.2001).

We deny Fields’ outstanding motion for an extension of time to file additional citations.

Fields’ remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                         307,000
<SECURITIES>                                   511,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,328,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,903,000
<INVENTORY>                                 61,502,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           102,084,000
<PP&E>                                      68,534,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,393,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             141,706,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       61,961,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,161,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               141,706,000
<SALES>                                    182,551,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           186,227,000
<CGS>                                      104,527,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               68,246,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,405,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,527,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,495,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,032,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,032,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47891-47897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18636]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-60]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-60 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 47892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.042


[[Page 47893]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.043


[[Page 47894]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.044


[[Page 47895]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.045


[[Page 47896]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.046


[[Page 47897]]


[FR Doc. E8-18636 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           EXHIBIT 11


                               ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                      (UNAUDITED)

                    (000s omitted - except for per common share data)

                                               Three months ended   Nine months ended
                                                  September 30,       September 30,  
                                               ------------------   -----------------
                                                  1996     1995        1996     1995
                                                  ----     ----        ----     ----
<S>                                             <C>      <C>         <C>      <C>
Computation of weighted average number of 
  common and equivalent shares outstanding:

 PRIMARY -

  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding .............................    13,664   14,071      13,714   14,069   
  Dilutive effect of stock options and 
    stock awards ............................       187      149         185      131   
                                                -------  -------     -------  -------
  Weighted average number of common and                
    equivalent shares .......................    13,851   14,220      13,899   14,200      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings attributable to common
  stockholders ..............................   $24,361  $17,257     $62,821  $50,368     
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings per common share ...............   $  1.76  $  1.21     $  4.52  $  3.55  
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======

 FULLY DILUTED 

  Weighted average number of shares 
    outstanding .............................    13,664   14,071      13,714   14,069     

  Dilutive effect of stock options and 
    stock awards ............................       194      163         194      139    
                                                -------  -------     -------  -------
  Weighted average number of common and
    equivalent shares .......................    13,858   14,234      13,908   14,208      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings attributable to common 
  stockholders ..............................   $24,361  $17,257     $62,821  $50,368     
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings per common share ...............   $  1.76  $  1.21     $  4.52  $  3.55  
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======

                                          Page 25
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                          SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     I, Gary R. Fairhead, am President and Chief Executive Officer of SigmaTron
International, Inc. (the "Company").

     This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in
connection with the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended April 30, 2007 (the "Report").

     I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

     (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78 m(a) or 78o(d)); 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 24, 2007


                                        /s/ Gary R. Fairhead
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary R. Fairhead
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer of
                                        SigmaTron International, Inc.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20443

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO CESAR VELASQUEZ-CRUZ, also known as Julio Velasquez, 

also known as Homero Vasqeuz,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-344-ALL 

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julio Cesar Velasquez-Cruz appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United

States after a previous deportation. He argues that the “felony”

and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and

(b)(2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Velasquez-Cruz’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 
No. 05-20443

-2-

Although Velasquez-Cruz contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). 

Velasquez-Cruz properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed

in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he

raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
CONVERTIBLE
      PROMISSORY NOTE





$29,330.18                                                                                                         Denver,
      Colorado


January
      1,
      2004







FOR VALUE RECEIVED, PARK-PREMIER MINING COMPANY, a Utah corporation (the
“Maker”), herby promises to pay to the order of Estate of Bertie Dunlap (the
“Holder”), the principal sum of Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Thirty and
      18/100 US Dollars ($29,330.18), together with interest on the unpaid balance
      at
      the rate of Twelve Percent (12%) per annum, on or before January 1, 2007,
      subject to conversion as described below.  Accrued interest will be
      added to the principal of the note on each annual anniversary date if not
      paid.




This Note may be converted into shares of Maker’s common stock at the conversion
      price of $.10 per share or such other conversion price as the board of directors
      may deem appropriate, not in excess of $.10 per share, until the due date
      hereof, at the Holder’s option.





This
      Note is subject to prepayment, in
      whole or in part, at the option of the Maker without penalty.  Such
      prepayments shall be applied first to interest accrued and then to the principal
      due hereunder.





In
      case the Note shall not be paid in
      full whenever it shall become due, the Maker agrees to pay all costs and
      expenses of collection including reasonable attorney’s fees, not to exceed 15%
      of the unpaid balance.




All rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State
      of Colorado.  If any part of the assets or capital stock of maker is
      sold or transferred without Holder’s prior written consent, except sales and
      transfers in the ordinary course of business and except transfers by devise,
      descent or by operation of law upon the death of a joint tenant:  (1)
      Holder may, at Holder’s option, declare all the sums due under this Note to be
      immediately due and payable, and (2) if the sale or transfer involves
      substantially all of the assets of Maker, the transferee shall be deemed to
      have
      assumed all of the obligations of Maker under this Note.





This
      Note is unsecured.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has
      signed his Note effective as of the date first above written.





PARK-PREMIER
      MINING
      COMPANY





By:     /s/
      Jeffery L. Lee


Its:     Vice
      President


Description:  Cash
      advances
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND STATEMENT OF
COMMON STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000201533
<NAME> CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        4,097
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        637
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             518
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,786
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,038
<COMMON>                                           841
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                          645
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                485
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              395
<PREFERRED>                                         44
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               808
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 275
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        1,200
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       55
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         85
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    31
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   2,174
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    7,038
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,934
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                69
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,655
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,724
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            210
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   5
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     215
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            87
<NET-INCOME>                                       128
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         19
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      109
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           109
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             367
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>