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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 December 21, 2016

s1214

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2016

154087

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154087

COA: 332800

Kent CC: 15-001236-FH

RODERICK ANTONIODION DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Kent Circuit Court, and we 

REMAND this case to that court for resentencing. The circuit court erred in assigning 10 

points for Offense Variable 9 (OV 9), MCL 777.39, where fewer than two victims were 

placed in danger of physical injury or loss of life. Because correcting the OV score 

changes the applicable guidelines range, resentencing is required. People v Kimble, 470 

Mich 305 (2004).
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Katon Lang

v. Case No. 07-cv-66-SM

Todd Gordon, et al.

O R D E R

Re: (Document No. 23) Defendants’ Motion for Summary

 Judgment

Ruling: Denied. The motion is considered unopposed. Even

so, it is plain from the exhibits filed by defendants that there

are genuine disputes as to material facts which preclude summary

judgment in defendants' favor. One need look not much farther

than the exhibits upon which defendants rely, particularly

Exhibit D in support of the motion. That exhibit consists of

excerpts of sworn deposition testimony given by the plaintiff,

filed by defendants, in which plaintiff describes an unwarranted

application of physical force causing him serious injury. 

Indeed, he provides evidence which, if believed, supports his

claim that the defendants "set him up" by spraying his sheets

with pepper spray during an otherwise uneventful cell inspection

for the very purpose of provoking a response that the officers

could then use as a predicate for applying excessive force

against him, without a legitimate penalogical reason, and for the

purpose of inflicting pain and injury. Whether a jury accepts

that evidence is a different question entirely, but given the

material nature of the factual disputes regarding what happened

and why, defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. A reasonable jury, if it accepts plaintiff's version of

events, could find in his favor. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

January 13, 2009

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esq.

John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00066-SM Document 39 Filed 01/13/09 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maria Esperanza BARRAGAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50104.

D.C. No. CR-01-02848-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided March 12, 2003.

Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Esperanza Barragan appeals her conviction, pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, and sentence for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Barragan’s contention that the indictment was defective because the grand jury was not given a nullification instruction that it did not have to indict even if it found probable cause, is foreclosed by *United States v. Marcucci,*299 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir.2002). Her contention that the federal drug statutes are unconstitutional following *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is precluded by *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002). *See United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that *United States v. Harris,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), does not overrule *Buckland*or Mendoza-Paz). Finally, her contention that the indictment was defective because it did not allege that Barragan had the *mens rea*as to the drug type and quantity is foreclosed by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.), *341cert. *denied,*— U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 572, 154 L.Ed.2d 458 (2002). Accordingly, Barragan’s conviction is

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.
3.12 U.S. RESERVE ASSETS

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2002 2003 2004

2005

May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.p

1 Total ................................. 79,006 85,938 86,824 77,742 76,594 74,620 72,243 71,273 70,218 68,773 65,125

2 Gold stock1 ............................ 11,043 11,043 11,045 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041

3 Special drawing rights2,3 ................. 12,166 12,638 13,582 11,385 11,243 11,206 8,304 8,245 8,224 8,180 8,210

4 Reserve position in International Monetary Fund2 ............................ 21,979 22,535 19,479 15,406 15,274 13,438 13,336 13,245 12,720 12,097 8,036

5 Foreign currencies4 ..................... 33,818 39,722 42,718 39,910 39,036 38,935 39,563 38,742 38,234 37,445 37,839

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www.federalreserve.gov/releases.

1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF have also been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2002 2003 2004

2005

May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.p

1 Deposits .............................. 136 162 80 105 103 83 81 96 88 82 83

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 678,106 845,080 1,041,215 1,065,032 1,058,972 1,070,625 1,075,098 1,056,594 1,060,857 1,073,710 1,069,014

3 Earmarked gold3 ....................... 9,045 8,971 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www.federalreserve.gov/releases.

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few

v.

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company, et al.

Case No. 06-cv-427-SM

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

Date: 1/24/07

cc: Sharon Few

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 6 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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 30 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk October 30 , 2020

158852 ( 1 10 )

DETROIT ALLIANCE AGAINST THE RAIN

TAX, DETROIT IRON & METAL COMPANY,

AMERICAN IRON & METAL COMPANY,

McNICHOLS SCRAP IRON & METAL

COMPANY, MONIER KHALIL LIVING TRUST,

and BAGLEY PROPERTIES, LLC,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

S C: 158852

v COA: 339176

CITY OF DETROIT, DETROIT WATER AND

SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT and DETROIT

BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendants

- appellees to file a response

to the brief amicus curiae filed by Kickham Hanley is GRANTED

. The response submitted

on October 2 9 , 2020 , is accepted for filing

.
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1583

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

Received

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany,

Indiana, as the ‘‘Lee H. Hamilton Federal Building and

United States Courthouse’’.

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

HR 1583 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse

3 located at 121 West Spring Street in New Albany, Indi4 ana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lee H. Ham5 ilton Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

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

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lee H.

11 Hamilton Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.2

  Exhibit 10.2
  
 AMENDMENT 1 TO THE COLLABORATION AGREEMENT
 BETWEEN
 CERTAINTY THERAPEUTICS, INC.
 AND
 H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
  
 Moffitt Agreement Identifier:  Anixa-CERTainty Contract (Conejo-Garcia) 17-0173
 Project Title:  Development of CAR-T/CER-T Therapies for Ovarian and Prostate Cancer
 Moffitt Principle Investigator:  Dr. Jose Conejo-Garcia
  
 The Agreement described above was previously entered into on November 17, 2017 (hereinafter "Effective Date) by and between H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc. a non-profit Florida corporation organized pursuant to Section 1004.43, Florida Statutes, whose address is 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, Florida 33612 ("Moffitt") and Certainty Therapeutics, Inc., a corporation duly organized under the laws of Delaware whose address is 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 250, San Jose, California 95118 (hereinafter "Company"). Moffitt and Company are hereinafter referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties."
       
 WHEREAS, Moffitt requests an extension of the Agreement end date from November 17, 2019 to November 17, 2020; and
  
 WHEREAS, Company agrees to Moffitt’s extended participation in the investigation set forth in the Research Plan attached as Exhibit B to the original Agreement; and
  
 WHEREAS, Moffitt and Company agree this amendment will continue to be governed by the Research Plan and milestone payment schedule defined in the original Agreement. 
  
 WHEREAS, Moffitt and Company agree to this modification as set forth by procedures described in Section 13.9 of the original Agreement.  
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein as covenants, and the mutual promises herein made and exchanged, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Company and Moffitt agree to the following modification:
  
 ARTICLE 7     Term and Termination.
  
             7.1       This Agreement will commence as of the Effective Date set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement and unless terminated otherwise as provided herein, this Agreement will expire thirty-six (36) months from such date, unless extended upon mutual written agreement of the Parties (“Term”).
  
 	 CERTAINTY THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	  
	 H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 BY:
	 /s/ Amit Kumar
	 	 BY:
	 /s/ Margaret J. Fonner

	 Name:
	 Amit Kumar
	 	 Name:
	 Margaret J. Fonner

	 Title:
	 Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
	 	 Title:
	 Director, Office of Sponsored Research
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bernard Diggs, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 579]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered October 29, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*808After the prosecutor elicited an in-court identification of the defendant from an eyewitness who had testified that he did not see the suspect’s face, the defendant moved for a mistrial or, alternatively, to strike the entire testimony of the witness. The trial court denied the motion except to the extent of striking the question and answer.

The decision whether to declare a mistrial necessarily rests in the broad discretion of the trial court, which is best situated to consider all the circumstances, and its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal *(see People v Lagerence,*197 AD2d 593 [1993]; *see also Matter of Plummer v Rothwax,*63 NY2d 243, 250 [1984]). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion except to the extent of striking the question and answer *(see People v Lagerence,*supra;*see also People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]). Moreover, the defendant did not request any additional curative action, and therefore his contention that the trial court should have given a curative instruction is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Santiago, supra).*Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2008-4)] 

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor. 

# SUMMARY:

The Board has approved the fourth quarter 2008 rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The fourth quarter 2008 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.199. The fourth quarter 2008 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.550. The fourth quarter 2008 RCAF-5 is 0.520. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         October 1, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. [Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.] 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site                     *http://www.stb.dot.gov*. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.]                 

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Decided: September 18, 2008.

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey. 

Anne K. Quinlan, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-22495 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis A. Smith

v. Civil No. 07-cv-119-SM

NH Department of Corrections,

Commissioner, et al.

O R D E R

On July 21, 2008, the Deputy Clerk forwarded to me for

ruling Document No. 90, Mr. Smith’s “Motion to Waive Fed. R. Civ

P. 5(d)” and the Objection. In an effort to understand the

motion and objection, I spent over one hour searching the docket

for the objection and motion of July 7, 2008 referenced by Mr.

Smith in his “Motion to Waive”. No such documents were docketed. 

On July 22nd, the Deputy Clerk forwarded “hard copies” of

the Objection and Motion date stamped as received by the court on

July 7th with a related note that they were referenced in

Document no. 90. Neither document has been docketed or scanned

into CM/ECF as required. The notice of non-compliance with Fed.

R. Civ. P. 5(d) sent to Mr. Smith is plainly wrong since the

interrogatories were clearly used by Mr. Smith “in the

proceeding.”

Case 1:07-cv-00119-SM Document 96 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The court apologizes to Mr. Smith for the court’s failure.

On the merits, Mr. Smith’s “Objection” is well-founded. The

copies of interrogatories sent to him by counsel are not legible. 

Defendant is ordered to serve the original answers to

interrogatories - not illegible photo copies. Second, the

answers to Wrenn interrogatories 5 and 11 and Heath

interrogatories 20, 28 an 29 are not sufficiently responsive. 

Counsel is ordered to supplement within ten (10) days. The Clerk

is ordered to docket the “Objection” and “Motion” received

forthwith. When docketed, the docket is to note that they are

granted by this order.

Document no. 90 is denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 23, 2008

cc: Dennis A. Smith, pro se

 Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

 

Case 1:07-cv-00119-SM Document 96 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 2
#### Sarah Collins JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GRAND LODGE KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, State of Louisiana, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14751.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 21, 1934.

P. C. Querens, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

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

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by the widow and beneficiary of Alfred Jackson against the Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias, state of Louisiana of North America, South America, Europe, Asia,. Africa, and Australia, for the sum of $400, alleged to he due her as a death benefit incidental to the membership of her husband in the defendant fraternal order. The amount is admitted to be due plaintiff, but it is sought to subject this payment to the provisions of article 3, section 2, of the constitution of defendant insurance company which defers the collection of the insurance and which reads as follows:

> “Upon receipt of proof of the death of a knight in good standing, the Grand Chancellor shall enter the name of the deceased upon a book to be kept for that purpose, with date of the receipt of said proof and date of the death of said member with the name, number and location of the lodge of the deceased.

> “All payments for endowment must be made in accordancfe with the priority of their record upon the books of the Grand Lodge.”

The plaintiff contends that the section of the constitution referred to is not applicable here for the reason that it was adopted subsequent to the death of her husband. Russ v. Supreme Council American Legion of Honor, 110 La. 588, 34 So. 697, 98 Am. St. Rep. 469.

There was judgment in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for and defendant has appealed.

It is unnecessary to decide the question of the applicability of the constitutional provision, for, assuming it to apply to this case, there is no proof in the record which would indicate that there are any other similar claims which are entitled to priority of payment. Mrs. Beatrice Harper, wife of Enoch Laws, v. Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias, etc., 154 So. 69, decided hy this court April 23, 1934.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1801 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1801

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th 
  Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Eldon B. Mahon United States 
                             Courthouse''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1801

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th 
  Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Eldon B. Mahon United States 
                             Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 501 West 10th Street in 
Fort Worth, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Eldon B. 
Mahon United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eldon B. Mahon 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```