alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130451 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130451 

 COA: 266541 

Saginaw CC: 02-021766-FH 

RICHARD ALAN HUMMEL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Houlihan, 480 Mich 1165 (2008). 

d0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 23, 2008 

 Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 99

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



| |                                                                                                                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | I, Patrick L. Beach, the President of GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC, the
manager of Captec Franchise Capital Partners L.P. III (the
Partnership), certify that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the
period ended March 31, 2003 which this certification accompanies 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/ Patrick L. Beach

Patrick L. Beach
President
GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC
May 15, 2002
#### ANDERSON *et al. v.*KING *et al.*

The question raised by exeeption to grant of interlocutory injunction being moot, the writ of error is dismissed.

No. 6367.

April 12, 1928.

Injunction. Before Judge Park. Baldwin superior court. November 14, 1927.

*C. A. Giles, Allen & Pottle,*and *T. R. Gross, assistant attorney-general,*for plaintiffs in error.

*C. B. McGullar*and *George PL. Carswell,*contra.

Hines, J.

Howard and Floyd King, owners of the Walter L. Main circus, made arrangements to have said circus exhibit at Milledgeville, Georgia, on November 14, 1927. On November 8, 1927, the health commissioner of Baldwin County, under the Ellis health law, telegraphed these owners that the health department would not permit their circus to exhibit at said time and place, as the gathering incident to the exhibition of the circus would be a menace to the public health. On November 12, 1927, the owners filed their petition in which they denied that the gathering incident to the exhibition of the circus would be a menace to the public health, and alleged that they would sustain damages if they were not permitted to hold their show as they had arranged and advertised to hold it. The petition was brought against Dr. Sam A. Anderson, the health commissioner of said county, its board of health, and the State board of health. Petitioners prayed that the defendants be restrained from in any manner interfering with *225the appearing of their circus at said time and place, and that they “have judgment against defendants for whatever amount justice might appertain.” On November 12, 1927, the judge granted a restraining order, and, after a hearing, continued the restraining order in full force until further order. On November 30, 1927, the defendants sued out the present bill of exceptions, seeking to review the judgment granting the interlocutory injunction. Counsel for the defendants in error moved to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that the case was moot, inasmuch as the circus was held on November 14, 1927, and that in consequence the defendants in error had no claim for damages against the plaintiffs in error. The facts on which said motion was based were not denied by counsel for plaintiffs in error. Under the circumstances the question raised by the bill of exceptions had become moot when the bill of exceptions was sued out, and is now moot. *Deaton*v. Day, 148 *Ga.*698 (98 S. E. 267).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
584 A.2d 224

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTONIO HOCKADAY.

May 21, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 [ANSYS LETTERHEAD] 
 December 31, 2008 
 Mr. J. Christopher Reid 
 Vice President, Marketing 
 ANSYS Canada, Ltd. 
 554 Parkside Drive 
 Waterloo, Ontario 
 N2L 5Z4 Canada 
 Re: Employment Agreement Termination 
 Dear Chris: 
 You are party to an Employment Agreement dated February 20, 2003 pursuant to which your duties were reassigned by letter agreement dated May 1, 2006 (collectively “Employment Agreement”). A copy of the Employment
Agreement is attached as Appendix A. 
 This letter confirms that you have agreed to terminate the Employment Agreement effective December 31, 2008.

 In consideration of your agreement to terminate the Employment Agreement, you will be paid $147,500 CAD less applicable tax and other withholdings. This
payment will be made on or before the first payroll date following your execution of this letter. 
 Please sign below to indicate your agreement with the
termination of the Employment Agreement and the terms of this letter. 
 Sincerely, 
 James E. Cashman III 
 Director, ANSYS Canada, Ltd. 
 President and Chief Executive Officer 
 ANSYS, Inc. 
 Enclosure: Employment Agreement 
  

							
	 /s/    J. Christopher Reid
	  		  	December 31, 2008	  	
	Signature – J. Christopher Reid	  		  	Date
585 A.2d 388

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL CHAVIS.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Daniel RONQUILLE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0744.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Ronquille, Daniel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial *1246District Court Div. A, No. 07-164; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-1067.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 757 

To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 

prevailing rate employees by 3.2 percent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2017 

Mr. CONNOLLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems 

and for prevailing rate employees by 3.2 percent, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Federal Adjustment 

5 of Income Rates Act’’ or the ‘‘FAIR Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY. 

7 (a) STATUTORY PAY SYSTEMS.—For calendar year 

8 2018, the percentage adjustment under section 5303 of 

9 title 5, United States Code, in the rates of basic pay under 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 757 IH

1 the statutory pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of 

2 title 5, United States Code) shall be 2 percent. 

3 (b) PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES.—Notwith4 standing the wage survey requirements under section 

5 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, for fiscal year 

6 2018, the rates of basic pay (as in effect on the last day 

7 of fiscal year 2017 under section 5343(a) of such title) 

8 for prevailing rate employees in each wage area and the 

9 rates of basic pay under sections 5348 and 5349 of such 

10 title shall be increased by 2 percent. 

11 SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENT TO LOCALITY PAY. 

12 For calendar year 2018, the percentage adjustment 

13 under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, shall 

14 be an increase of 1.2 percent. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD J. BROWN.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements found in the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10Q for the nine months ended February 27, 1999, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             FEB-27-1999
<CASH>                                        16,868
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                     259
<INVENTORY>                                    6,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              42,252
<PP&E>                                       111,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                51,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               116,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         28,429
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      44,889
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 116,201
<SALES>                                       81,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              81,050
<CGS>                                         82,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 82,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              31,840
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (34,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (13,115)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (21,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                (21,398)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (3.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (3.43)
        

</TABLE>
Order filed June 22, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00509-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF C.F., JR., K.F. AND C.F., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 328th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCV-237456

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. The judgment was signed 

May 24, 2018. The notice of appeal was due within 20 days, which was June 13, 

2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 28.4(a). Appellant R.M., however, filed her notice 

of appeal on June 21, 2018, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of 

appeal. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting 

instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 

615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice 
2

of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come 

forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. 

Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant R.M. to file a proper motion to extend 

time to file the notice of appeal by July 5, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). 

If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3555

___________ Grady Newingham, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. David Westbrook, Sgt., Maximum * Security Unit, ADC; Turoty Hayes, * [UNPUBLISHED] CO-I, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; * Greg Harmon, Warden, Maximum * Security Unit, ADC; Kay Wade, * Corporal, Maximum Security Unit, * ADC, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 27, 2005 Filed: August 9, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Arkansas inmate Grady Newingham appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various prison employees for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm, but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice and clarify that the dismissal does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dismissal is merited because Newingham failed to show he exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claim that Defendant Arkansas Department of Correction Director Larry Norris failed to protect him from an assault. See Kozohorsky v. Harmon , 332 F.3d 1141, 1143 (8th Cir. 2003). Newingham’s argument on appeal that administrative remedies were unavailable to him because they did not provide for monetary relief is without merit. See Booth v. Churner , 582 U.S. 731, 734 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                            IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)


                                                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                                               February 28,     February 29,
                                                                               -----------------------------
                                                                                    1997            1996
                                                                               -----------------------------
<S>                                                                              <C>              <C>  
Primary and fully diluted earnings per share

     Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding                            4,734            4,734

Effect of:
     1994 Long-Term Incentive Plan                                                       -                -
     1994 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan                                      -                -
                                                                                 ---------         --------

Shares outstanding used to compute primary and fully diluted earnings per
     share
                                                                                     4,734            4,734
                                                                                 =========         ========
Net Income                                                                       $     314         $    282
                                                                                 =========         ========

Primary and fully diluted earnings per share                                     $     .07         $    .06
                                                                                 =========         ========
</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   August 14, 2006
    
    /s/ George C. PlattDate
    
    George C. PlattChief Executive Officer
 1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   August 14, 2006
    
    /s/ Laurie L. LathamDate
    
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
 2
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2014-UBS4

The undersigned, duly authorized officers of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
and as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate
Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance
with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator



/s/ Ronaldo Reyes

BY: Ronaldo Reyes

Title: Vice President

Date: March 1, 2019



/s/ Karlene Collins

BY: Karlene Collins

Title: Assistant Vice President

Date: March 1, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,890,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               60,737,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,402,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       2,303,634<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,333,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,293,398
<BONDS>                                     34,166,290<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,198
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,842,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,333,222
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,560,598
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,311,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0<F4>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                249,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                    95,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   154,241
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY DOES NOT PREPARE A CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
<F2>INCLUDES DEFERRED TAX ASSET OF $988,000
<F3>INCLUDES NONRECOURSE DISCOUNTED LEASE RENTALS OF $25,473,938
<F4>AMOUNT, $869,026 IS INCLUDED IN TAG 29, "TOTAL COSTS"
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ROBERT MYER TONEY, DOC #Y45509, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4797 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 25, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.