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.

 March 29, 2016

a0321

Order 

Clerk

March 29, 2016

151577

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151577

COA: 324220

Wayne CC: 13-011035-FC

DESHAWN LEE STARKS,

Defendant-Appellant,

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2015 order 

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

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to determine 

whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the 

sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On 

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If 

the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. We leave 

intact the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. With regard to the defendant’s 

challenge to costs, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of the 

proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals. In all other respects, leave to appeal is 

DENIED because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be 

reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

SPGGC, Inc .

v . Civil No. 04-cv-420-SM

Kelly A . Ayotte, NH Attorney Genera l

ORDER

Re : Document No . 52, Motion to Compel Compliance with

Confidentiality Orde r

Ruling : On September 7, 2005 Chief Judge McAuliffe entered an

order that "(e)ach party shall abide by the Stipulated

Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order' endorsed by this

Court on this day ." No further order is required to compel the

state and its attorneys to comply with the terms of the protective

order . Since no sanctions were sought none are granted .

/s/ James R . Muirhead

James R . Muirhead

U .S . Magistrate Judge

Date : November 3, 200 5

cc : Margaret M . Pinkham, Esq .

Paul W . Shaw, Esq .

Marc R . Scheer, Esq .

David A . Rienzo, Esq .

Case 1:04-cv-00420-SM Document 54 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-194-01-SM

Robert Cashmon

O R D E R

Defendant Cashmon’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 20). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 

2008 trial period. Defendant Cashmon shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than January 17, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference or Change of Plea: January 22, 2008 

at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00194-SM Document 21 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 3, 2008

cc: Mark Howard, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00194-SM Document 21 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1991...... 65.1 81.5 69.3 68.8 40.6 50.3 52.0 59.0 64.0 67.8 1992...... 71.7 78.5 63.5 66.3 47.8 75.3 57.3 59.1 61.2 78.6 1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 1999: Q4... 62.3 31.2 59.9 65.4 54.1 82.6 54.2 58.0 57.9 66.5 2000: Q1... 63.0 46.4 69.2 59.4 80.6 70.8 51.8 52.4 53.0 69.7  Q2... 68.3 51.0 57.8 69.7 57.6 78.4 53.0 54.7 61.8 78.0  Q3... 71.0 60.0 59.5 78.9 38.6 72.9 57.3 57.9 67.8 79.2  Q4... 66.5 66.8 56.2 62.8 51.0 81.6 51.6 53.2 65.7 73.1 2001: Q1... 67.7 64.7 73.7 73.4 50.8 63.9 60.0 60.4 66.4 70.4  Q2... 76.1 77.5 56.8 73.8 79.0 85.1 57.3 57.4 69.0 86.2  Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6  Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5  Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3  Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8  Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.1 66.7 62.9 54.8 79.9  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          22,895
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,565
<PP&E>                                          12,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,291
<BONDS>                                          2,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,215
<SALES>                                         35,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,865
<CGS>                                           23,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,134<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (306)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,886)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST EXPENSE IS NET OF $568 OF INTEREST INCOME LESS $262 OF INTEREST
EXPENSE.
<F2>OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDE $2.6 MILLION OF COSTS INCURRED IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF
1998 RELATED TO LEGAL AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES RELATING TO THE RESTATEMENT,
SEVERANCE PAYMENTS, CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS, SEC INVESTIGATION AND THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO THE


DELMAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

2017 OMNIBUS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Dated: September 5, 2019


 


WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors of DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) heretofore established the DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
2017 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors desires to amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of common stock of the Corporation available for
grants of “Awards” (as defined under the Plan) thereunder from 780,000 to 2,280,000 (not counting shares of common
stock that have previously been issued pursuant to the Plan or that are the subject of outstanding Awards under the Plan), all
of which are to be available as grants as Incentive Stock Options; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 17.2
of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors to amend the Plan, subject to stockholder approval to the extent that such approval
is required by applicable law;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, subject
to approval of the Company’s stockholders, effective the date hereof, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


Section 4.1(a) of the
Plan is hereby amended in its entirety, to read as follows:


 


“(a) Subject
to adjustment pursuant to Section 4.3 and any other applicable provisions hereof, the maximum aggregate number of shares of Common
Stock which may be issued under all Awards granted to Participants under the Plan shall be 2,280,000 shares; provided, however,
that such number shall be reduced by the number of shares of Common Stock issued under the Legacy Plan and/or subject to outstanding
grants of options under the Legacy Plan (that is, which have not been forfeited or that have expired without having been exercised).
All 2,280,000 of such shares initially available pursuant to this Section 4.1(a) may, but need not, be issued in respect of Incentive
Stock Options.”


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed this Amendment as evidence of its adoption by the Board of Directors of the Company on the date set
forth above.


 


	 	DELMAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Saiid Zarrabian
	 	Name:	Saiid Zarrabian
	 	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	Date:	September 9, 2019
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000675 31-OCT-2013 09:32 AM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-20-PB

Lacey Grendell

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

August 21, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in plea negotiations. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from August 21, 2007 to November 6, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:07-cr-00020-PB Document 17 Filed 07/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The July 23, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

October 25, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

July 18, 2007

cc: John Pendelton, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00020-PB Document 17 Filed 07/18/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-12-01-SM

Da Van Ha

O R D E R

Defendant Ha’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial is

granted (document 22). Trial has been rescheduled for the August 2007 trial

period. Defendant Ha shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

June 4, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, this continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: July 24, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: August 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 23 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

May 23, 2007

cc: Philip R. Desfosses, Esq.

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00012-SM Document 23 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Joseph R. LISTERMAN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 03-3031.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Feb. 26, 2003.

*475Before MICHEL, RADER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

The Department of Justice moves for summary affirmance of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s August 22, 2002 order modifying and affirming the Administrative Judge’s (AJ) initial decision order dismissing Joseph R. Listerman’s appeal as barred by res judicata. Listerman has not responded.

In 1986, Listerman appealed his removal by the Bureau of Prisons to the Board. The Board rejected Listerman’s affirmative defense of handicap discrimination and sustained the agency’s removal action. This court affirmed the Board’s decision. *Listerman v. Justice,*818 F.2d 877 (Fed. Cir.1987) (Table).

In 2002, Listerman filed an action with the board based on his allegation that the agency had retaliated against him for “whistleblowing,” i.e., filing his discrimination claim. The AJ concluded: “[Bjecause the appellant could have raised his retaliation claim in his first [1986] appeal, which has been resolved by a valid final judgment, the doctrine of *res judicata*bars him from filing the instant request for corrective action based on whistleblowing.” The Board affirmed the AJ’s res judicata determination.

Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.1994) (summarily affirming the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a complaint). The Department of Justice argues that summary affirmance is appropriate because the Board properly concluded that Listerman’s appeal was barred by res judicata.

We agree that the Board correctly dismissed Listerman’s appeal because Lister-man’s 2002 reprisal claims could have been raised in the original 1986 challenge to his removal. *Cf. Spears v. Merit Systems Protection Board,*766 F.2d 520, 523 (Fed. Cir.1985) (“Having previously appealed her removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board on nondiscrimination grounds and lost, Spears is barred by *res judicata*from subsequently challenging her termination on the allegation of discrimination.”). Thus, because no substantial question exists regarding the outcome of the instant petition for review, the court summarily affirms the decision of the Board.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
**EXHIBIT11.1**

 

**EFJ, INC.AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATIONOF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE**

** (in thousands, exceptshare and per share data)**

 
| ** **                                 | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                 | ** ** | **March 31,**     | ** ** |
| ** **                                 | ** ** | **2008**               | ** ** | **2007** | ** ** |
| Net loss                                   |       | $                      | (2,112     | ) | $ | (363 | ) |
|                                       |       |                   |       |   |   |
| Weighted average  common shares—Basic |       | 26,062,748             |       | 26,030,067 |   |
| Net loss per  share—Basic             |       | $                      | (0.08      | ) | $ | (0.01 | ) |

 

----
Exhibit 32
                    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 AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-Q
for  the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2010



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 11, 2010
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**June 2003**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: June 30, 2003**
225 La. 1092

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. RYMAN.

No. 40022.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 2, 1954.

William J. Daly, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Henry B. Curtis, City Atty., Edgar Corey, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

In this suit the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from using the premises, an apartment house located at 2810 Napoleon Avenue, for more than four apartments and dwelling units in violation of city Ordinance No. 11,302, C.C.S. of the City of New Orleans. The defendant interposed an exception based on the ground that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The exception was referred to the merits and after hearing on the merits, the court rendered judgment enjoining the defendant from using the premises in violation of the ordinance. The defendant has appealed.

The appellant was of the impression that this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal in this case for the reason that the constitutionality of the ordinance was attacked in the lower court. It appears that the lower court held the ordinance to be constitutional and such being the case we do not have appellate jurisdiction. It is only where an ordinance has been declared unconstitutional that an appeal lies to this Court. Section 10 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Louisiana; Mouton v. City of Lafayette, 217 La. 894, 47 So. 2d 679.

*387We have examined the record and find that no value is placed on the right in contest. We have appellate jurisdiction only when the record affirmatively shows that the amount in dispute or the value of the right asserted exceeds $2,000. Article 7, § 10 of the Constitution; Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Smith, 221 La. 1026, 61 So.2d 513; Sexton v. Waggoner, 222 La. 680, 63 So.2d 428.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, LSA-R.S. 13:4441, 13:4442, the record to be filed in said court by appellant within thirty days from finality of this decree; otherwise the appeal to stand dismissed.