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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 28, 2013

t1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147462

COUNTY OF MIDLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147462

COA: 303611

Midland CC: 09-005709-CL

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF

MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 11, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1285

___________________________

Weidong Sun

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: September 26, 2017

Filed: October 4, 2017 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Weidong Sun petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) order affirming, without opinion, an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) June

2016 decision denying his second motion seeking to rescind a removal order entered

in absentia, and to reopen proceedings (motion to rescind/reopen). See Hashmi v.

Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700, 703 (8thCir. 2008) (where BIA affirms IJ’s decision without
opinion, this court reviews IJ’s decision asfinal agency action). Sun’s second motion

to rescind/reopen was based on his claimthat his second attorney provided ineffective

assistance of counsel. In his brief to this court, Sun has not presented any argument

as to why the rejection of his ineffective-assistance claim was error. Thus, he has

waived the issue. See Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476, 479 n.2 (8th Cir. 2017)

(waiver).

Sun’s brief seeks to challenge only the basis for the IJ’s November 2015 order

denying his first motion to rescind/reopen. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the

November 2015 order, however, because Sun did not appeal the denial to the BIA. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (alien must exhaust all available administrative remedies

before court may review final order of removal); Baltti v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 718,

722-23 (8thCir. 2017) (alien must pursue all stages of administrative review, and also

raise all issues before agency); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (except when certified to

BIA, IJ’s decision becomes final upon expiration of time to appeal if no appeal is

taken). The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,364
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       38
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,425
<PP&E>                                             819
<DEPRECIATION>                                     469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               89
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           848
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,204
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   262
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   329
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (226)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (30)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (256)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 165 (Monday, August 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50050-50051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-200-0777-XZ-241A]

Notice of Meeting, Front Range Resource Advisory Council 
(Colorado)

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Front Range 
Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 30, 2008 from 9:15 a.m. to 4 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E. 
Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Dow, (719) 269-8559

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15 member Council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in the Royal Gorge Field Office and San Luis Valley, Colorado. Planned 
agenda topics include: Manager updates on current land management 
issues including; presentations and

[[Page 50051]]

discussions on the Over the River project, oil and gas, and renewable 
energy development.
    All meetings are open to the public. The public is encouraged to 
make oral comments to the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written statements 
may be submitted for the Council's consideration. Depending on the 
number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for 
individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the 
Council Meeting will be maintained in the Royal Gorge Field Office and 
will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular 
business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Meeting 
Minutes and agenda (10 days prior to each meeting) are also available 
at: http://www.blm.gov/rac/co/frrac/co_fr.htm.

    Dated: August 14, 2008.
Linda McGlothlen,
Acting Royal Gorge Field Manager.
[FR Doc. E8-19613 Filed 8-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re RAMEY ALAINE CHISUM,

Petitioner

______________________

2024-144

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00067-EHM, Judge 

Edward H. Meyers.

______________________

ON PETITION AND ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Ramey Alaine Chisum petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Court of Federal Claims 

to enter judgment in her favor and moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

In the underlying proceedings before the Court of Federal Claims, the United States moved to dismiss, and 

Ms. Chisum moved for summary judgment. The Court of 

Federal Claims stayed briefing on the summary judgment 

motion pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Briefing on the motion to dismiss completed in late August 2024, 

and that motion remains pending. 

Case: 24-144 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2024
2 IN RE CHISUM

In order to establish entitlement to the extraordinary 

remedy of a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show: (1) 

“no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires,” 

(2) a “clear and indisputable” right to relief, and (3) that 

the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) 

(cleaned up). Here, at a minimum, Ms. Chisum has failed 

to show she is unable to get the relief she is seeking without 

our immediate intervention on mandamus. And, to the extent Ms. Chisum challenges the trial court’s decision to 

stay consideration of her motion for summary judgment

pending consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss, she has not shown the sort of unreasonable delay required for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition and motion are denied.

September 16, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 24-144 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2024
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                     Registration No. 33-59791

                                 $500,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                   Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
               Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing  Supplement,  dated January 25, 1996
     (To  Prospectus  Supplement,  dated August 7, 1995,
     to Prospectus, dated August 7, 1995).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement and
modify,  to  the  extent  applicable,  the  description  of  general  terms  and
provisions of Citicorp's  Medium-Term  Subordinated Notes, Series E set forth in
the accompanying  Prospectus and Prospectus  Supplement.  Capitalized  terms not
defined  herein  shall  have  the  meanings   assigned  to  such  terms  in  the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:                6.60% Subordinated Notes Due January 15, 2008
                               (the "Notes").

Aggregate
 Principal Amount:             $3,329,000.00

 Price to Public:              100%

 Issue Date:                   January 30, 1996.

 Stated Maturity Date:         January 15, 2008.

 Interest Rate:                6.60%

 Interest Payment Dates:       Monthly on the 15th day of each month, commencing
                               on February 15, 1996, and at Stated Maturity.

 Regular Record Dates:         The first day of the month in which each Interest
                               Payment Date occurs.

 Sinking Fund:                 None.

 Redemption:                   The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but
                               not in part, at the option of Citicorp, on not
                               more than 60 or less than 30 days' notice, on any
                               Interest Payment Date, on or after January 15,
                               1999, at a redemption price of 100% of their
                               principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest
                               to the redemption date.

 Selling Agent:                J.W. Korth & Co.

 Agent's Commission:           2.00%.

 Minimum Denomination:         $1,000.

 CUSIP Number:                 17303 MEP 0.
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 LILM, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George I. Norman, III, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.








/s/   George I. Norman, III





George I. Norman, III


Principal Accounting Officer


March 30, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
#### MARSHALL v. GUIDING STAR BEN. ASS’N, Inc.

No. 13732.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 3, 1931.

■F. B. Smith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Robt. E. O’Connor, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIER, J.

Plaintiff was named beneficiary in a certificate of fraternal insurance issued by defendant on the life of plaintiff’s wife.

On the death of the wife, defendant refused to make payment, claiming that, at the time of the issuance of the certificate, slightly more .than two years prior to the death of Angeline Marshall, she, the wife, was already afflicted with the diseases from which she later died, and that therefore no recovery can be had, since, in her application for the Insurance certificate, she had stated that she was in sound bodily health.

The amount claimed is $260. It is not disputed that this is the amount due, if defendant’s contention be not sustained, and . this is the amount for which judgment was rendered below.

*361In view of the language of the Supreme Court in Goff v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 131 La. 98, 59 So. 28, it is extremely doubtful that this defense would prevail, even if the evidence sustained defendant’s contention. But the sole witness relied on to prove that the ailments from which death later resulted had been contracted prior to the issuance of the certificate was Dr. T. D. Hayes, who testified solely as a medical expert and not as the physician who treated the deceased, and who did no more than to state that in almost all cases of chronic myocarditis and chronic nephritis, which are the causes of death as given in the death certificate, development is slow, and death usually occurs only after two years or more have elapsed since the first contraction thereof.

The evidence falls far short of proving that, in this particular ease, the diseases mentioned were in existence when the policy was applied for, and the defense must therefore fail.

We are asked to amend the judgment by the allowance of damages for the delay caused by the so-called frivolous appeal.

The record is quite convincing of the fact that the appeal was taken for no other reason than to delay payment of the judgment, and therefore the damages asked for will be allowed, and will be fixed at 10 per cent.

The judgment appealed from is amended by the allowance of 10 per cent, damages for frivolous appeal, and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.