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.

October 26, 2016

a1017 

# Order

Clerk October 26, 2016

152940

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152940

COA: 327956

Monroe CC: 10

- 038392

- FH

PARIS ORLANDO BRIDGEFORTH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2015

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED , because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1416 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2007 

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. KOHL, 

Mr. DODD, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE IN4 SURANCE PREMIUMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

6 163(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to mortgage insurance premiums treated as interest) is 

8 amended by striking clause (iv). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to amounts paid or accrued after 


jlentini on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•S 1416 IS

1 December 31, 2007, and to amounts properly allocable to 

2 any period after such date. 

Æ 


jlentini on PRODPC74 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

BOB BARR, WAYNE A. ROOT, BRENDAN

KELLY and HARDY MACIA,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 08-cv-367-JM

v.

WILLIAM M. GARDNER, in his Official Capacity

as Secretary of State of New Hampshire,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE REPLY

Pursuant to LR 7.1(e)(1), the Court and opposing counsel are hereby provided 

with notice of plaintiffs’ intention to file a memorandum in reply to defendant’s objection

(Dkt. # 22) to plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 19).

/s/Gary Sinawski 

Gary Sinawski

180 Montague Street 25 Floor th

Brooklyn, NY 11201

516 971-7783

Fax: 347 721-3166

Email: gsinawski@aol.com

/s/Evan Feit Nappen 

Evan Feit Nappen

Nappen Law Office

E.F. Nappen Attorney at Law, PC

280 Pleasant Street, Suite 2

Concord, NH 03301

603 223-0001

Case 1:08-cv-00367-JM Document 23 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 2
Fax: 603 223-0007

E-mail: gunesq1@verizon.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on October 28, 2009 to 

James W. Kennedy, counsel for the defendant, via the federal court’s ECF filing system.

/s/ Gary Sinawski 

Gary Sinawski

Case 1:08-cv-00367-JM Document 23 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lance Torres, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 3, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied that the defendant herein was provided with meaningful representation by trial counsel *(see, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796; *People v Sanchez,*148 AD2d 760). One should not confuse true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and should not accord undue significance to retrospective analysis *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146). A contention of ineffective assistance of trial counsel requires proof of less than meaningful representation rather than simple disagreement with strategies and tactics *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 708-709) and a demonstration of actual prejudice *(see, People v Sullivan,*153 AD2d 223). The defendant has failed to show that he received less than meaningful representation.

It is well established that the trial court has the discretion to order the pretrial release of the names and addresses of the People’s witnesses *(see, People v Lynch,*23 NY2d 262, 271-272). The record herein fully supports the trial court’s decision not to disclose the names and addresses of the prosecution’s witnesses to the defendant some two months prior to the start of the trial, especially in view of the fact that the defendant had stated on several occasions that he had shot the victim because he was an informant.

The record also fully supports the trial court’s determination to dismiss two prospective jurors who had informed the court that they would be unable to render a guilty verdict *924under any circumstances if the prosecution did not produce the murder weapon, despite the court’s instruction that production of the weapon was not necessary to establish the crime *(see,*CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; *People v Torpey,*63 NY2d 361). The record fails to support the defendant’s contention that the People either withheld evidence or introduced false evidence.

Finally, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the sentence was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Exhibit Number 10.02

                          WEST TELESERVICES CORPORATION


To:    Mike Micek

From:  Tom Barker

Date:  December 8, 1999

Re:    2000 Compensation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The compensation plan for 2000 while you are employed as Chief Financial Officer
for West TeleServices Corporation is being revised as indicated below:

1.   Your base salary will be $215,000.00. Should you elect to voluntarily
     terminate your employment, you will be compensated for your services
     through the date of your actual termination per your Employment Agreement.
     This will be reviewed on an annual basis and revised, if necessary in
     accordance with the consumer price index.

2.   Effective January 1, 2000, you will be eligible to receive a performance
     bonus based on year-to-date growth of profits over the same period of the
     prior year.  This bonus will be calculated by multiplying the year-to-date
     growth in profits for each quarter by the corresponding profit growth
     participation factor from the table below, minus bonus paid year-to-date
     for the respective calendar year.

          Profit Growth    Profit Growth Participation Factor
          -------------    ----------------------------------
           0% - 19.99%                   1.0%
          20% - 29.99%                   1.25%
          30% - Above                    1.40%

     As an example, if profits for the first quarter of calendar year 2000
     increases by 20% compared to the same period of the previous year
     representing a $2,000,000 increase in profits, you would earn a bonus of
     $25,000 ($2,000,000 X 1.25%).

     Please note that a negative year-to-date profit calculations at the end of
     any given quarter will result in "loss carry forward" to be applied to the
     next quarterly year-to-date calculation.  All bonuses will be paid within
     thirty (30) days of the end of the quarter.

3.   For the purposes of this Exhibit A, profit shall be defined as pre-tax
     profit growth of the Company on a consolidated basis.
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit Number 10.02

                                   Page Two
Exhibit A - M. Micek
December 8, 1999

4.   At the discretion of management, you may receive an additional bonus based
     on the Companies' and your individual performance.

5.   Your Compensation Plan for the year 2001 will be presented no later than
     December 1, 2000.

                    /s/ Mike Micek
                    -----------------------
                    Employee - Mike Micek
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          23,861
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                       597
<INVENTORY>                                      8,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,611
<PP&E>                                         118,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,497
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       648,475
<OTHER-SE>                                   (510,765)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,787
<SALES>                                        129,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,198
<CGS>                                           21,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (53,472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (53,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,632)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.35)
        

</TABLE>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.115 Credit Unions** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            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)

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), the
undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

         Dated: May 12, 2006                  /S/ VICTOR INSETTA
               ----------------            ------------------------
                                              Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
```
#### Donnie E. SPINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee, v. CHEVRON OIL COMPANY and Barge Facilities, Inc., Defendants Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross Appellants, Labor Services, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants. Donnie E. SPINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABOR SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Donnie E. SPINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABOR SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 73-3618.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1977.

Philip E. Henderson, Houma, La., for plaintiff-appellant-cross appellee.

Lloyd C. Melancon, Joel L. Borrello, New Orleans, La., for Chevron Oil Co.

Tom F. Phillips, John R. Tharp, Baton Rouge, La., for Labor Services, and others.

James H. Drury, New Orleans, La., for Surplus Lines Ins.

T. C. W. Ellis, New Orleans, La., for Steamship Mut., etc.

Donald M. Pierce, Donald V. Organ, New Orleans, La., for Seguros American Banamex.

Lawrence D. Wiedemann, New Orleans, La., for Welch Sales & Serv.

Before RIVES, WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Chevron Oil Company for clarification of the opinion is GRANTED.

In this Court’s opinion in these cases issued January 27, 1975, 5 Cir., 507 F.2d 216, the Court reversed and remanded the cases

> “for (1) *reconsideration*of liability, both under the Jones Act and maritime law, consistent with the principles stated in this opinion; (2) *reconsideration*of the indemnity provisions of the contract between Labor Services and Chevron; and (3) the determination of damages, should the district court find for the plaintiff.”

At that time we used the term “reconsideration” because wé were hopeful that the dispute might be resolved without the necessity of a new trial. Now, on reflection and in the interests of justice, we conclude that the trial judge may exercise his discretion (1) to reconsider the issues without a new trial or (2) to conduct a trial on the existing record with such additional evidence as he may regard as material and pertinent to the issues raised in or as a result of the appeal or (3) to retry the case totally, if none of the parties is prejudiced by the judicial delays inherent in the appellate process involving a difficult case or a result of this Court’s failure to act more quickly on the motion for clarification. By prejudice we mean, for example, the death or unavailability of a key witness.
# **Exhibit 31.4**

#  

I, R. Herbert Hampton, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; and

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

 

Date: April 28, 2005

 
|   |   /s/  R. Herbert Hampton  |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   R. Herbert  Hampton      |
|   |                                 |
|   |   Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### DADE COUNTY GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, a Co-operative Association under the Laws of Florida, Appellant, v. Bernard COX; and Walter E. Shaw, and Sam Burdick, Individually and as Co-partners d/b/a Shaw & Burdick, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

March 9, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 28, 1955.

PER CURIAM,

Affirmed.
#### In re ZAPF. ESTATE of KRESENZIA.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02327-WJM-MEH

AVAYA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PACIFIC (USA) CORP., A New York Corporation

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR RELEASE OF BOND 

AND DISMISSAL OF CASE

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Release of

Bond and Dismissal of Case (ECF No. 48) filed July 16, 2012. The Court having

reviewed the Motion and the record hereby ORDERS as follows:

The parties’ Stipulated Motion is GRANTED. The bond posted in connection with

this matter by Plaintiff Avaya, Inc. is RELEASED (ECF No. 17). The bond requirement

previously ordered in this case is VACATED (ECF No. 16). It is FURTHER ORDERED

that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each side shall

bear its own costs, attorney’s fees, and expert witness fees.

Case 1:11-cv-02327-WJM-MEH Document 49 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated this 16th day of July, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02327-WJM-MEH Document 49 Filed 07/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### FRANKLIN v. TEXAS & P. R. CO.

No. 18972.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 7, 1948.

Certiorari Denied July 2, 1948.

J. L. Warren Woodville, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Phelps, Dunbar, Marks & Claverie and J. Burnwell Phelps, all of New Orleans, for defendant and appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In application for rehearing, counsel for plaintiff-appellant strenuously contends that we stated that only an issue of fact is presented in this case and that we were in error in so stating. Counsel maintains that the question of law which was involved was this: Where there is only one witness, plaintiff himself, to an accident, and he gives testimony which would entitle him to recover if not contradicted, that testimony must be accepted and a court may not refuse to accept it as true even where circumstantial evidence and physical facts show it to be untrue.

We deckled that question of law against plaintiff, holding that under such circumstances a court is not bound to accept as true the testimony of plaintiff himself where circumstantial evidence and physical facts prove it to be untrue. We then held that, on the issue of fact which is presented, the circumstantial evidence and the physical facts preponderate, and we followed the District Judge in refusing to accept the unsupported testimony of plaintiff himself.

The rehearing requested is refused.

Refused.
Exhibit 32
Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002),  I, the  undersigned  Chief  Executive and
Financial  Officer of Safe  Alternatives  Corporation  of  America,  Inc.,  (the
"Company"),  hereby  certify that,  to the best of my  knowledge,  the Quarterly
Report on Form  10-QSB of the Company for the period  ended  September  30, 2004
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of  operation  of the  Company.  A signed  original  of this  written  statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained
by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.

Dated:  November 12, 2004
                                                          /s/ Dale Hensel
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Dale Hensel
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

# **SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

##  

 

I, Monte S. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of Ciprico Inc., certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K of Ciprico Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known tous particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 

 
| Dated: December 6, 2005 | Signature: | /s/ Monte S. Johnson    |
|-------------------------|------------|-------------------------|
|                    |       | Monte S. Johnson        |
|                    |       | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----