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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

January 29, 2014

p0122 

# Order

Clerk January 29, 2014

147091

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147091

COA: 314337

St. Joseph CC: 12

- 017690

- FH

MICHAEL ANDREW RADANDT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration, as on leave granted, of the issue whether the police officers unlawfully

expanded a “knock and talk” procedure by entering the defendant’s backyard and

walking onto a wooden deck, which was attached to the home, and, if a constitutional

violation occurred, whether the good

- faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies

under these facts. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EARL HARVEY.

November 17, 1987.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000890855
<NAME>                          Enex Oil & Gas Income Program V - Series 5, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         17307
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  46336
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               66490
<PP&E>                                         1301480
<DEPRECIATION>                                 731830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 642709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31553
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     611156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   642709
<SALES>                                        394573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               394573
<CGS>                                          140890
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  304815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   91608
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-200160 on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 3, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements of PRA Health Sciences, Inc. (formerly PRA Global Holdings, Inc.) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2014
and 2013, for the year ended December 31, 2014 and the period from September 23, 2013 to December 31, 2013, and the consolidated financial statements of PRA Holdings, Inc.
and subsidiaries (the "Predecessor") for the period from January 1, 2013 to September 22, 2013 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding the acquisition of the Predecessor on September 23, 2013), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PRA Health Sciences, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2014.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Raleigh,
North Carolina
March 3, 2015

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25609]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7201]


Waiver Pursuant to Section 7076(d)(2) of the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. 
F, P.L. 111-117) Relating to Assistance for the Government of 
Afghanistan

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, 
including under section 7076(d)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, P.L. 
111-117) (``the Act''), I hereby waive the requirement in section 
7076(d)(2) of the Act to certify that the Government of Afghanistan is 
cooperating fully with United States efforts against the Taliban and Al 
Qaeda and to reduce poppy cultivation and illicit drug trafficking and 
report that it is vital to the national security interests of the 
United States to do so.
    This waiver shall be reported to the Congress promptly and 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 28, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-25609 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-17-P
U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Office of the Chairman
1615 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20419-0002

Phone: (202) 653-7101 ; Fax: (202) 653-7208; E-Mail: chairman@mspb.gov

Chairman

February 21, 2013

The Honorable Tom Carper

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As the Chairman of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), I am
writing to address a matter of critical importance to our agency in connection with the
possible government-wide “sequestration,” and specifically, the possible furlough of a
significant number of federal employees. I would like to request a brief meeting with you
at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues in greater detail.

Under title 5 of the United States Code, MSPB is responsible for, among other
things, adjudicating appeals by federal employees of “adverse personnel actions” by
federal agencies including removals, suspensions for more than 14 days, reductions in
pay, demotions, and furloughs of 30 days or less. Most federal employees who are
subjected to adverse personnel actions have a statutory right to appeal that action to
MSPB. During Fiscal Year 2012, MSPB issued a total of 7,585 decisions, including
6,523 initial decisions issued by the regional and field offices, and 1,050 decisions issued
at headquarters.

The possibility of sequestration is of unique concern to MSPB because of our
statutory responsibility to hear appeals by federal employees of “furloughs of 30 days or
less.” A furlough is defined as “the placing of an employee in a temporary status without
duties and pay because of lack of work or funds or other nondisciplinary reasons.” It has
been reported that sequestration could result in the furlough of “hundreds of thousands”
of federal employees. If this report is accurate, and if even a fraction of federal
employees who are furloughed as a result of sequestration exercise their right to file an
appeal, it would not only dramatically increase MSPB’s caseload but create a “domino
effect” that could seriously affect the operations of federal agencies, as they divert
resources from fulfilling mission-critical work to litigating furloughed employees”


appeals. Moreover, MSPB itself could be required to furlough its workforce as a result of
sequestration, leaving the agency with less staff and fewer resources to process and
decide furlough appeals.

Again, I would like to schedule a brief meeting with you to provide a more
detailed explanation of the potential impact of the sequestration from MSPB’s
perspective. Bryan Polisuk, MSPB General Counsel, will follow up with your staff to
determine whether and when a meeting can be scheduled in the near future. Mr. Polisuk
may be reached at bryan.polisuk@mspb.gov or by phone at (202) 254-4403.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to speaking with
you.

Sincerely,

0

Susan Tsui Grundmann
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 13, 2011 |   | /s/ C.E. Rick Strattan                                  |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | C.E. Rick Strattan                                      |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer                                 |
|                          |   | (principal executive, financial and accounting officer) |
No. 87-6214.

#### Murphy *v.*Sisco et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Spooner R. Howell v. Albert Dickerman, Circuit Judge of Muskegon County.

[See *ante,*361.]

*Attachment*— Debt *not due*— Allowance *of writ.*

Before the clerk is authorized to issue a writ of attachment under Act No. 149, Laws of 1889 (3 How. Stat. § 8016a), the statutory affidavit must be presented to him, with the order of allowance of the circuit judge indorsed thereon. • ■

*Mandamus.*

Submitted November 5, 1891.

Writ granted November 13, 1891.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondent to quash a writ of attachment. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in *Howell v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, ante,*361.

*Bunlcer & Carpenter (Fletcher & Wanty,*of counsel), for relator.

*Sessions, Soper & Bassett (FitzGerald & Barry,*of counsel), for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Application for *mandamus*to compel respondent to quash a writ of attachment issued out of the Muskegon circuit court at thé suit of John Torrent, plaintiff, against Spooner R. Howell, “ doing business under the name and style of S. R. Howell & Co.”

The writ of *mandamus*must issue in the case, for reasons stated in *Howell v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, ante,*361, and also for this- additional reason: The statute provides that _ the writ of attachment shall not issue until *370the plaintiff, or some one in his behalf, shall have made an affidavit “showing reasons for the immediate issuance of said writ, to the satisfaction of a circuit judge,” and obtained his order indorsed on such affidavit that such writ may issue and be proceeded with. The order in this case was indorsed upon the writ, and not upon the affidavit. It appears that the affidavit was attached to the writ when it was presented to the circuit judge, and he indorsed his order upon the writ instead of the affidavit; and the deputy-clerk makes affidavit that he issued the writ as a matter of course, as in other cases, and that the order that now appears indorsed upon the writ was not presented or shown to him, nor did he issue the writ in pursuance of said order. The attorney who procured the writ makes affidavit that the writ was prepared in his office, and the affidavit attached before it was presented to the circuit judge for indorsement, and after, such indorsement was presented to the deputy-clerk, who thereupon signed and sealed the writ; but he does not know whether or not said deputy-clerk read such indorsement.

This is a matter we cannot determine upon affidavits. The order is required by the statute to be indorsed upon the affidavit, and the evident intention of the law is that the writ shall not issue until the affidavit, properly indorsed by the circuit judge, shall be presented to the clerk.

As the affidavit in this case has not such indorsement,, the writ was improvidently issued, and is void.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2211

DONALD SULLIVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; TERRY R. YOUNGBLUTH, Colonel, Individually; JAMES W. DELONY, Colonel, Individually; CHARLES R. ALEXANDER, Colonel, Individually; J. RICHARD KAPKA, Brigadier General, Individually; PETER MADSEN, Brigadier General; JOE N. BALLARD, Lieutenant General, Individually; ROBERT B. FLOWERS, Lieutenant General; ERIC K. SHINESKI, General, Individually, Army Chief of Staff; LOUIS CALDERA, Individually; THOMAS E. WHITE, Honorable, Secretary of the Army; MICKEY SUGG, Individually; JEFF RICHTER, Individually; JIM STERLING, Individually; WAYNE WRIGHT, Individually, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-22-7-F) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Donald Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Donald Sullivan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the United States Army Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction over his property pursuant to the Clean Water Act and seeking damages. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sullivan v. United States , No. CA-03-22-7-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2003). We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
#### JOHN HOWELL v. CITY OF CAMDEN.

October 20, 1987.

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

<ARTICLE>             5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         744,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  698,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,349
<INVENTORY>                                  1,462,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,608,099
<PP&E>                                       1,986,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 522,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,849,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          702,737
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,579,073
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,849,244
<SALES>                                        364,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               285,743
<CGS>                                           91,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,270,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (943,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (943,738)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (943,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
       
<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       Apr-01-1997                
<PERIOD-END>                         Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                 1,015,212
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            531,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              289,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,983,850
<PP&E>                                   294,501
<DEPRECIATION>                           151,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,366,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    457,614
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                  41,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             1,852,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           2,366,561
<SALES>                                2,066,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,066,603
<CGS>                                    459,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            459,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,214,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (9,471)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          343,320
<INCOME-TAX>                              49,655
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      293,665
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             293,665
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .07
        

</TABLE>
648 A.2d 701

#### IN THE MATTER OF PASCAL P. GALLERANO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 6, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court recommending that PASCAL P. GALLERANO of WEST CALDWELL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972 and who was temporarily suspended from practice on April 6, 1992, and who remains suspended at this time, be disbarred on the basis of his conviction of solicitation and acceptance of a gift while a public servant, in violation of *N.J.SA*2C:27-6; and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PASCAL P. GALLERANO of WEST CALDWELL is disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that PASCAL P. GALLERANO be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by PASCAL P. GALLER-ANO, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that PASCAL P. GALLERANO comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

*45ORDERED that PASCAL P. GALLERANO reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs.
**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**

 

****In connection with the Quarterly Report of DrugMax, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jugal K. Taneja, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withrequirements 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 result of operations of the Company.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK BURBIC.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.