alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
648 A.2d 702

#### IN THE MATTER OF DONALD B. DEVIN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 6, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that DONALD B. DEVIN of DOVER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violations of *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed), *RPC*8.4(c) (misrepresentation) and *RPC*8.4(b) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and DONALD B. DEVIN is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective October 31, 1994, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

*47ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with Regulation 23 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Erskine L. ROBINSON a/k/a Erskine Robertson.

No. 2010-K-1242.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Robinson A/K/A, Erskine L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 472-452; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1137.

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130261(47) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 130261 COA: 255876 Saginaw CC: 03-022908-FC MARCUS RAYDEVAN WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of th is Court’s order of April 28, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0619 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.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
#### STATE ex rel. Ashley POSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0718.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

Prior report: La.App., 993 So.2d 375.

In re Posey, Ashley; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 19709; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 0746.

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SANDOVAL-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79-2155.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued March 31, 1980.

Decided April 25, 1980.

Ralph M. Schelly, Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas P. Sullivan, U. S. Atty., Antonio J. Curiel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, BAUER, Circuit Judge, and BAKER, District Judge.*

Honorable Harold A. Baker, District Judge of the Central District of Illinois, is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted in the district court of selling counterfeit alien registration receipt cards in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1426(b). He appeals to this court claiming that he was improperly convicted under the provisions of that statute and that properly, he could have been convicted only under 8 U.S.C. § 1306(d).

The issue presented for review is whether a person who sells counterfeit alien registration receipt cards sells a counterfeited instrument relating to the registry of aliens within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1426(b). We hold that he does.

While the issue on appeal has not been decided heretofore by this court, it has been ruled upon by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In *United*
      *1201
      *States v. Castillo-Felix,*539 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1976) the same contention was made as to 18 U.S.C. § 1426(a) which deals with the manufacture of counterfeit instruments related to the registry of aliens. The court held:

> We find the contention without merit that 18 U.S.C. § 1426(a) does not embrace the counterfeiting of an alien registration receipt card. 8 U.S.C. § 1302 requires aliens to register. 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(b) makes Form 1-151 evidence of such registration. The card is a paper authorized by law relating to the registry of aliens within 18 U.S.C. § 1426(a). That section does not, as defendant contends, relate solely to naturalization and citizenship.

> We find without merit the contention that, since 8 U.S.C. § 1306(d) is specific as to the counterfeiting of alien registration receipt cards, the prosecution should have been under it rather than under the more general provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1426(a). It is the general rule that, where an act violates more than one statute, the Government may elect to prosecute under either unless the congressional history indicates that Congress intended to disallow the use of the more general statute. *United States v. Brown,*482 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1973). There is nothing in the legislative history to indicate that by the enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1306(d) Congress intended to disallow the use of 18 U.S.C. § 1426(a). *Cf. Kniess v. United States,*413 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1969).

*Id.*at 14.

We find the court’s analysis persuasive and dispositive and adopt it as the ruling in this case.

The judgment below is affirmed.
|   | i.                             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 the      Company. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:           |   /S/ ROBERT      Y. LEE                 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:         | Robert      Y. Lee                                                                         |
| Title:        | Chief      Executive Officer                                                               |
|               |                                                                                            |
| Date:         | February      19, 2008                                                                          |
649 A.2d 853

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT J. VEDATSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

December 1, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that ROBERT J. VEDATSKY of VOO-RHEES, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, be publicly disciplined for failure to cooperate with the ethics authorities, in violation of *RPC*8.1(b), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report of the Disciplinary Review Board is adopted and ROBERT J. VEDATSKY is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### STATE ex rel. Calvin Lee CRADDOCK v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2857.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Craddock, Calvin Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 397650; *1194to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2005.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          39,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                     47,442
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               274,223
<PP&E>                                         247,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 795,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          229,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,636)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   795,653
<SALES>                                        717,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               717,987
<CGS>                                          704,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  704,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,471
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,695)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)


</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1632 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the annual report required 

on veterans’ reemployment rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2007 

Mr. REICHERT (for himself and Mr. WALZ of Minnesota) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

annual report required on veterans’ reemployment rights. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Veterans’ 

5 Reemployment Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VETERANS’ REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS REPORT IM7 PROVEMENT. 

8 (a) ADDITIONAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS.—Section 

9 4332 of title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1632 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall’’ and in2 serting ‘‘(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary 

3 shall’’; 

4 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through 

5 (6) as paragraphs (5) through (7), respectively, and 

6 inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 

7 paragraph (4): 

8 ‘‘(4) The number of cases reviewed by the Sec9 retary of Defense under the National Committee for 

10 Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve of the 

11 Department of Defense during the fiscal year for 

12 which the report is made.’’. 

13 (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by 

14 striking ‘‘or (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3), or (4)’’; 

15 (4) by redesignating paragraph (7), as so redes16 ignated, as paragraph (8), and inserting after para17 graph (6) the following new paragraph (7): 

18 ‘‘(7) An indication of which of the cases re19 ported on pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 

20 (4) are disability-related.’’. 

21 (5) by adding at the end the following new sub22 sections: 

23 ‘‘(b) UNIFORM CATEGORIZATION OF DATA.—The 

24 Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense, 

25 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 1632 IH

1 and the Special Counsel to ensure that the information 

2 required to be submitted as part of the report under sub3 section (a) is categorized in a uniform way. 

4 ‘‘(c) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The Secretary 

5 shall provide the information contained in the report re6 quired under subsection (a) to the Secretary of Defense, 

7 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General, 

8 and the Special Counsel.’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply with respect to a report submitted 

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Nick Henson v. Martin, Byrne & Johnson.

(No. 3041.)

Error from Mitchell County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 272. *Appeal from justice’s court; returnable, when; judgment by default in.*Defendants in error recovered a judgment against plaintiff in error in justice’s court, *205from which he appealed to the county court. The papers of this appeal were filed in the county court on the third day of the first term of the county court held after the appeal was perfected. On the next day after the papers were filed, judgment by default was rendered against plaintiff in error. He moved to set aside the judgment upon the ground that it was improperly rendered, the papers from the justice’s court not having been filed on or before the first day of the term of the court. This motion was overruled. *Held,*in cases of appeal from justice’s court, it is provided that the transcript and papers shall, if practicable, be transmitted to the clerk of the county court on or before the first day of the next term of such court; but if there be not time to make out and transmit the same to the first term, they may be so transmitted on or before the first day of the second term of the court. [E. S. art. 16-11.] The papers in this case not having been transmitted to the' first term of the court after the rendition of the judgment, and filed therein on or before the first day of said term, the case was not properly before the court for disposition at that term, but was a case returnable to the next term of the court, and the judgment by default was without authority of law.

June 21, 1884

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summmary financial information extracted from the 
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to said statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                         328,261
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,677,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,490,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,459,037
<PP&E>                                         1,964,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,280,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,370,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,978,620
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    11,471
<COMMON>                                       5,561
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,182,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,370,187
<SALES>                                        3,835,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,835,865
<CGS>                                          2,397,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  889,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             225,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                323,543
<INCOME-TAX>                                   13,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            310,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   310,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.06
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant To

18 U.S.C. Section
1350,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby
certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(i) | the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 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 such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                                
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 18, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    THOMAS J.
MAY
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Thomas J. May                                  
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF JUNE 2, 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD77154 Richard C. Davis vs. State of Missouri

WD77909 Joyce Elaine Rider-Diehl vs. Darrell Leroy Diehl

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76978 State of Missouri vs. Derrick C. Bluett

WD77262 State of Missouri vs. Raheem K. Bland

WD77335 State of Missouri vs. Sara Nichole Myers
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF VERSATA, INC.


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002


REGARDING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2002





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), I, Eugene Wong, Chief
Executive Officer and Director of Versata, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), do hereby certify that:





1.  The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2002 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and





2.  Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:

/s/    EUGENE
WONGEugene Wong Chief Executive
Officer and Director





Date: January 28, 2003
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.

June 8, 2020

izm 

# Order

Clerk June 8, 2020

161250 (36 )

In re BYRD

____________________________________ SC: 161250

COA: 351102

GERALD ANTHONY

- DECELL BYRD

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, and

WAYNE COUNTY CLERK,

Defendants

- Appellees.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the May

11, 2020 order is denied because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

Within 21 days of the date of this order, Appellant shall pay the initial partial filing fee of

$43.00, s ubmit a copy of the May 11, 2020 order, and refile a copy of the pleadings as

ordered. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this application.
Exhibit 21.1

                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF JOURNAL REGISTER COMPANY

The following is a list of the corporations that are subsidiaries of Journal
Register Company, a Delaware corporation.  If indented, the corporation listed
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporation under which it is listed.


                                          State of                Number of
Name of Corporation                    Incorporation          Owned Subsidiaries
-------------------                    -------------          ------------------

Journal News, Inc.                       Delaware                      4

  Journal Register East, Inc.            Delaware                      21

  Northeast Publishing Company, Inc.     Delaware                      10

  Chanry Media, Inc.                     Delaware                      8

  Register Company, Inc.                 Delaware                      -

  JRC.com, LLC                           Delaware                      -

INSI Holdings, Inc.                      Delaware                      2
#### S.V., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-494.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 2010.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 6, 2011.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Brian L. Ellison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Michael C. Greenberg, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Negron v. State,*306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974).