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

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 March 28, 2012

p0321 

# Order

March 28, 2012

143117 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 14 3117 COA: 302633 Saginaw CC: 08-030880-FC DAVID ORIN SAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of November 2, 2011, the prosec uting attorney was di rected to answer the application for leave to appeal the March 30, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be revi ewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of Marbletown Residents Association, Inc., et al., Appellants v Town of Marbletown Planning Board et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered April 13, 1989 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Town of Marbletown Planning Board approving a site plan for a shopping plaza.

*659Judgment affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice Vincent G. Bradley. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
900 Circle 75 Parkway




 






















































	


 900 Circle 75 Parkway

	


Suite 1120

	


  Atlanta, GA 30339

	


770-933-7000

	


770-933-7010 Fax











SunLink Health Systems, Inc.



March 9, 2005



Mr. Robert M. Thornton, Jr. 



SunLink Health Systems, Inc. 



900 Circle 75 Parkway



Suite 1120



Atlanta, GA 30339



In Re: Amended and Restated Employment Agreement









Dear Bob:






We refer to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement among you, SunLink Health Systems, Inc. ("SunLink") and SunLink Healthcare, LLC (successor to SunLink Healthcare Corp.) dated July 1, 2003 (the "Amended and Restated Employment Agreement"). The purpose of this letter is to amend the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement to extend the term thereof by eighteen months. Accordingly, the date "December 31, 2004" in the first sentence of Section 2 of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the date "June 30, 2006" is hereby inserted in lieu thereof. All other terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged, in full force and effect.







If you agree to the foregoing amendment please sign this letter agreement in the space indicated below.






	


SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.



















	


By: /s/ Joseph T. Morris

	


Title: Chief Financial Officer












SUNLINK HEALTHCARE, LLC






By: /s/ Maria E. Madison



Title: Vice President






ACCEPTED AND AGREED



This 9 day of March, 2005






/s/ Robert M. Thorton, Jr.           L.S



Robert M. Thorton, Jr.
Exhibit 10.11


 


	
  Aviron

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  

  	
  RECEIVED

  MAR 6 1996

  A.C. DISANTE

  	
  297 North

  

  Bernardo Avenue

  

  Mountain View,

  

  California

  

  94043

  

  
 Tel:

  

  415-919-6500

  

  Fax:

  

  415-919-6610

  
	
  March 4, 1996

  



 


Anne
DiSante


Senior
Technology Licensing Specialist


University
of Michigan


303
South State St.


Wolverine
Tower, Room 2071


Ann
Arbor, MI 48109-1280


 


By
Fax: 313-936-1330


Confirmation to follow by mail.


 


Dear
Anne:


 


Thank
you for your letter of February 28, 1996 notifying Aviron of the
termination of the license agreement between the University and Kaketsuken.


 


As
described in the agreement between the University and Aviron, please consider
this written notice confirming Aviron’s desire to exercise its option to extend
the definition of the term “TERRITORY” to include Japan.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ J. Leighton Read

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  J. Leighton Read, M.D.

  	
   

  
	
  Chairman and CEO
IA 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 117

Approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of Columbia 

honoring former President John Adams. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2002

Mr. ROEMER (for himself and Mr. DELAHUNT) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the location of the commemorative work in the 

District of Columbia honoring former President John Adams.

Whereas section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, provides that the location of a commemorative work in the 

area described as Area I shall be deemed disapproved unless approved by law not later than 150 days after notification to Congress that the commemorative work should 

be located in Area I; 

Whereas Public Law 107–62 (115 Stat. 411) authorized the 

Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia to 

honor former President John Adams and his legacy; and 

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress 

of her determination that a memorial to former President 
2

•HJ 117 IH 

John Adams should be located in Area I: Now, therefore, 

be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK. 

4 (a) APPROVAL.—Congress approves the location for 

5 the commemorative work to honor former President John 

6 Adams and his legacy, as authorized by Public Law 107–

7 62 (115 Stat. 411), within Area I as described in section 

8 8908 of title 40, United States Code, subject to the limita9 tion in subsection (b). 

10 (b) LIMITATION.—The commemorative work ap11 proved in subsection (a) shall not be located within the 

12 Reserve. 

13 (c) DEFINITION OF RESERVE.—In this section the 

14 term ‘‘Reserve’’ means the area of The National Mall ex15 tending from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln Me16 morial, and from the White House to the Jefferson Memo17 rial, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Commemorative 

18 Areas Washington, DC and Environs,’’ numbered 869/

19 86501A and dated May 1, 2002.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Adams, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), rendered August 14, 1984, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On February 23, 1983, a home in Elmont, New York, was burglarized and some jewelry and a video cassette recorder were stolen.

Recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime, if unexplained or falsely explained, will justify the inference that the possessor is the thief *(People v Galbo,*218 NY 283, 290). The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that he was in recent possession of the fruits of a crime. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The People proved that the defendant sold a video cassette recorder, which had been stolen from the complainants’ home, to a secondhand dealer only a few hours after the theft had been committed. Moreover, the testimony of the defendant’s girlfriend that he gave her some jewelry which he said he had taken, when considered together with the complainant’s testimony that the jewelry in question had been stolen from her *482home, is sufficient to support his conviction for that theft *(see, People v Colon,*28 NY2d 1, 10, *cert denied*402 US 905).

The defendant further contends that the court’s *Sandoval*ruling was not proper. The court’s ruling, which precluded the prosecutor from inquiring into the facts underlying the defendant’s prior convictions, properly weighed the prejudice of the evidence against its probative value *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371; *People v Dubose,*147 AD2d 585).

We find that the imposition of a term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed upon a prior unrelated conviction was proper *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20894]


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

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 08-10]


Notice of the September 17, 2008 Millennium Challenge Corporation 
Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, September 17, 2008.

PLACE: Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Suzi M. Morris via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33715c524157735e50501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="74361b150610341917175a131b02">[email protected]</span></a> or by 
telephone at (202) 521-3600.

STATUS: Meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Board of Directors (the ``Board'') of the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation (``MCC'') will hold a meeting to 
discuss and consider country-specific compact development issues and 
compact implementation issues affecting a number of MCC's countries; 
and certain administrative matters.
    The agenda items are expected to involve the discussion of 
classified information and the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
William G. Anderson, Jr.,
Vice President and General Counsel, Millennium Challenge Corporation.
[FR Doc. E8-20894 Filed 9-4-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered April 3, 2020

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00195

- CV

IN RE MUAMAR ASAD SA YYED, Relator

O rigi nal Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Cour t

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 82405

- 07

ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek

Based on the Court’s opinion issued on April 3, 2020

, 1 we DENY relator’s

February 13, 2 020 petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ DA VID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE

1 This nunc pro tunc is being entered to reflect April 3, 2020 as the correct date of issuance.
Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 27, 2004



 Exhibit 10.39 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
  
 This First Amendment (“Amendment”), dated January 4, 2005 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Flextronics Sales and Marketing (A-P)
Ltd., a Mauritius corporation (“Buyer”), and Agilent Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Seller”), amends that certain Asset Purchase Agreement, dated October 27, 2004, by and between the Buyer and Seller (the
“Agreement”). Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.1(a) of the Agreement, either Party may terminate the Agreement if the Closing has not occurred by ninety (90) days
following the date of the Agreement; 
  
 WHEREAS, both Parties
desire to change the termination date specified in Section 10.1(a) of the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 1. The Parties agree that Section 10.1(a) of the Agreement shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:

  
 “(a) by either Party if the Closing
shall not have occurred by one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date hereof; provided, however, that the right to terminate this Agreement under this Section 10.1(a) shall not be available to any Party whose failure to fulfill any
obligation under this Agreement shall have been the cause of, or shall have resulted in, the failure of the Closing to occur on or prior to such date;” 
  
 2. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Except for the amendment stated above, no other provision of the Agreement is
amended and it shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
  







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized
officers or representatives as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	
	 FLEXTRONICS SALES & MARKETING (A-P) LTD.

		
	 By:
	 	 /S/    MANNY MARIMUTHU


	 Name:
	 	 Manny Marimuthu


	 Title:
	 	 Director


	
	 AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /S/    YOUNG SOHN


	 Name:
	 	 Young Sohn


	 Title:
	 	 President, Semiconductor Products Group
#### GILMORE v. RACHEL.

No. 1990.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 4, 1939.

M. R. Stewart, of Lake Charles, for appellant.

Plauche & Stockwell, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff and appellant in this case has filed a motion to transfer the case *to*the Supreme Court on the ground that the amount involved is in excess of the jurisdiction of this Court.

The suit is for damages in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for slander and defamation of character. The damages are not sought on the grounds of physical injuries or circumstances incidental to phys*429ical injuries suffered by the plaintiff, and the jurisdiction over the appeal is clearly in the Supreme Court and not in this Court. Constitution, Article VII, Sections 10 and 29.

It is therefore ordered that in accordance with Act No. 19 of 1912, the appeal in this case be transferred to the Supreme Court within sixty days from this date, and without the payment of costs by appellant.
900 Circle 75 Parkway

	


Suite 1120

	


  Atlanta, GA 30339

	


770-933-7000

	


770-933-7010 Fax








SunLink Health Systems, Inc.



March 9, 2005



Mr. J. T. Morris



SunLink Health Systems, Inc. 



900 Circle 75 Parkway



Suite 1120



Atlanta, GA 30339
In Re:Amended and Restated Employment Agreement









Dear Pete:



We refer to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement among you, SunLink Health Systems, Inc. ("SunLink") and SunLink Healthcare, LLC (successor to SunLink Healthcare Corp.) as of the 1st day of February, 2002 (the "Amended and Restated Employment Agreement"). The purpose of this letter is to amend the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement to extend the term thereof by eighteen months. Accordingly, the date "December 31, 2004" in the first sentence of Section 2 of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the date "June 30, 2006" is hereby inserted in lieu thereof. All other terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged, in full force and effect.






If you agree to the foregoing amcndsnent please sign this letter agreement in the space indicated below.



SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.






By: /s/ Robert M. Thornton, Jr.



Title: Chief Executive Officer







SUNLINK HEALTHCARE, LLC






By: /s/ Maria E. Madison



Title: Vice President






ACCEPTED AND AGREED 



This 9 of March, 2005






/s/ Joseph T. Morris                L.S.



J.T. Morris
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 47

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make

eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United

States citizen for twenty years.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 2001

Mr. FRANK (for himself and Mr. HOEKSTRA) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to make eligible for the Office of President a

person who has been a United States citizen for twenty

years.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 47 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘A person who is a citizen of the United States, who

5 has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States,

6 and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President,

7 is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a

8 natural born citizen of the United States.’’.

Æ
#### George Henry BLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

June 1, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18

of the United States Code

I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG
Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC.



/s/ Ralph IzzoRalph IzzoPSEG Power LLCChief Executive OfficerJuly 30, 2010
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the
undersigned officer of Westway Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2011 |  | /s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.
|                     |  | Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                 2,279,813
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (559)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,666,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,520
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           312
<OTHER-SE>                                     499,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,666,167
<SALES>                                          9,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,936
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,098
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,062
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (514)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Theresa McAdam

v. Civil No. 04-cv-472-PB

Raymond Lorden

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appellant’s brief is due on July 8, 2005. Appellee’s brief

is due on July 29, 2005. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 23, 2005

cc: Grenville Clark, III, Esq.

 Michael S. Askenaizer, Esq.

 US Bankruptcy Court-NH, Clerk

 Timothy P. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00472-PB Document 6 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans; Notice of Availability 
of Report

    In compliance with section 13 of Public Law 92-463 (Federal 
Advisory Committee Act) notice is hereby given that the 2008 Annual 
Report of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Advisory Committee on 
Minority Veterans has been issued. The report summarizes activities and 
recommendations of the Committee on matters relative to VA programs and 
policies affecting minority veterans. It is available for public 
inspection at two locations:

Mr. Richard Yarnall, Federal Advisory Committee Desk, Library of 
Congress, Anglo-American Acquisition Division, Government Documents 
Section, Room LM-B42, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington DC 
20540-4172, and
Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Minority Veterans, Suite 
435, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20420.

    By Direction of the Secretary:

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-20934 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joel Valdez

, * From the 161st District Court

o f Ector County,

Trial Court No

. B

- 43,431

Vs. No. 11

- 21

- 00 24 0

- CR * February 9, 2023

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.