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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

141988 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141988 

 COA: 291862 

Wayne CC: 08-018426-FC 

JOHN HENRY CISTRUNK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2010 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 70.

#### Isaac Williams, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant.

[1.] Where a witness, in behalf of the State, is detained from Court by the - means or procurement of the defendant, his jjrevious examination taken doirn by the committing Magistrate, may be read on the trial.

Larceny, in Muscogee Superior Court. Tried-, before-Judge Worrill, June Term, 1855.

A single question is made by this record. Williams was-indicted for the larceny of a watch, from a man named Thomas. On the trial, among other things, it appeared that Thomas and prisoner had settled the case. The Solicitor General stated that he had been informed that prisoner had induced Thomas to absent himself from Court; and from diligent search, he believed him to be in Alabama. The Court then állowed the written memorandum of the testimony, given in by Thomas before the committing Magistrate, to be read to the Jury, after the Magistrate swore that it was correct.

This decision is assigned as error.

Hill ; E. G. Dawson, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Brown, for the State.

*403
      *By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] It was resolved, upon the trial of Lord *Morley,*for murder, (7 *State*Trials, 421,) that in case oath should be made •that any witness who had been examined by the Crown, and was then absent, was detained by the means or procurement of the prisoner, and the Court should be satisfied from the evidence, that the witness was detained by means or procurement of the prisoner, then the examination should be read ; and that whether the witnesses was so . detained, was matter of fact of which the Jury and not the Court, were the judges.

The only question, then, in this case is, was the foundation sufficiently laid by the preliminary examination of John B. Wright and the Solicitor General, to authorize the reading of :the testimony of Anderson Thomas, which had been taken down, in writing, by the committing Magistrate ? We think mot. Mr. Wright proved nothing except the settlement of •the case by the parties. And the only *fact*stated by Mr. Brown, was, that he had used all diligence to procure the attendance of the prosecutor, Thomas. The rest was all hearsay and inadmissible to make out the case, so as to let in the . secondary proof.

We do not think that the 6th article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which says, “ the accused shall have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” has any bearing upon this point. The practice intended to be prohibited by that provision, was the . secret examinations, so much abused during the reign of the Stuarts, and was not intended to disturb any great rule of •criminal evidence.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1727 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1727

 To authorize additional appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of 
                           Dams Act of 1978.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 2003

 Mr. Domenici introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize additional appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of 
                           Dams Act of 1978.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 
              RECLAMATION SAFETY OF DAMS ACT OF 1978.

    (a) Reimbursement of Certain Modification Costs.--Section 4(c) of 
the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 508(c)) is 
amended by striking ``(c) With respect to'' and all that follows 
through ``2001'' and inserting the following:
    ``(c) Reimbursement of Certain Modification Costs.--With respect to 
the additional amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 5''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5 of the Reclamation 
Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 509) is amended in the first 
sentence--
            (1) by striking ``and effective October 1, 2001'' and 
        inserting ``effective October 1, 2001'';
            (2) by inserting ``and, effective October 1, 2003, not to 
        exceed an additional $540,000,000 (October 1, 2003, price 
        levels),'' after ``(October 1, 2001, price levels),''; and
            (3) by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting ``$1,250,000 
        (October 1, 2003, price levels), as adjusted to reflect any 
        ordinary fluctuations in construction costs indicated by 
        applicable engineering cost indexes,''.
                                 <all>
```
- Ames Home
- About Ames   - Overview
  - Astrogram Newsletter
  - Careers and Internships
  - Contact
  - Doing Business 
  - FOIA
  - History
  - Leadership and Organizations
  - Media Resources
  - Partner
- Capabilities   - Advanced Computing and IT Systems
  - Aerosciences
  - Air Traffic Management
  - Biology and Astrobiology
  - Cost-Effective Space Missions
  - Entry Systems
  - Intelligent/Adaptive Systems
  - Space and Earth Science
- Missions   - VIPER
  - Kepler / K2
- Multimedia   - Featured Images
  - Image Library
  - Videos
  - NASA Images and Video
- Visit Ames

# 							Inquiries for Ames Research Center						

## Public Inquiries

For frequently asked public inquiry questions and answers for NASA Ames Research Center, please click **here.**

## **News media requests**

To request **news media interviews** with Ames researchers, please contact the Ames Public Affairs Office at **650-604-4789**, or visit the **Ames Media Resources** page for media contacts and other resources.

For **documentary, book, entertainment and commercial requests**, please send a treatment and information about your project’s distributor to **bert.ulrich@nasa.gov**. NASA does not support speculative projects.

## Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

Questions and filing instructions for NASA FOIA requests are available at **www.nasa.gov/foia**.

NASA Ames Research Center’s **FOIA Electronic Library** contains documents specifically identified for inclusion by the Freedom of Information Act, as well as documents for which multiple FOIA requests have been received.

**The Ames FOIA officer:**

**Martha Terry**ARC FOIA Public Liaison OfficerNASA Ames Research Center(202) 358-2339 (HQ FOIA OFFICE)**hq-foia@nasa.gov**

## **Archives**

Direct **archival research inquiries** to the Ames Research Center Archives. Historical collections in the archives provide information about the center’s management, competencies, culture, activities, achievements, origins, evolution, facilities, and personnel. Consult the collection guides before making an inquiry. The archivist responds to requests from NASA, outside institutions, and the general public.

@NASAAmes

@NASAAmes

@NASAAmes

@company/nasa-ames-research-center

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Careers

NASA Centers and Facilities

Artemis

NASA Images
# Sitemap

## August 2011

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2011
- August 2011

            - 01
            - 02
            - 03
            - 04
            - 05
            - 06
            - 08
            - 09
            - 10
            - 11
            - 12
            - 15
            - 16
            - 17
            - 18
            - 19
            - 22
            - 23
            - 24
            - 25
            - 26
            - 29
            - 30
            - 31
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1997. MICHAEL ANTHONY CHEEKS v. THE STATE.

This case was docketed in this court on June 20, 2018. The Appellant’s brief

and enumeration of errors was due on or before July 10, 2018, pursuant to this court’s

Rule 23. The docket does not reflect a motion for an extension of time having been

filed prior to the date the brief and enumerations of error was due, as contemplated

by this court’s Rule 16. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 18, 2018

07/18/2018
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 September 27, 2018

d0920

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2018

154684

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154684

COA: 325806

Saginaw CC: 14-039758-FJ

KAREEM AMID SWILLEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of September 12, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the September 

13, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Chatman (Docket No. 155184). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having 

been denied in Chatman on March 9, 2018, 501 Mich 1011 (2018), the application is 

again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. 

MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing whether it is reasonably likely that the trial court’s questioning of 

witnesses improperly influenced the jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or 

partiality against a party. See People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162 (2015). In addition to the 

brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). 

In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required 

by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of 

being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an 

appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant.

A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the 

appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application 

papers.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1790 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1790

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3210 East 10th Street in Bloomington, Indiana, as the ``Francis X. 
                   McCloskey Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2003

  Mr. Bayh (for himself and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3210 East 10th Street in Bloomington, Indiana, as the ``Francis X. 
                   McCloskey Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FRANCIS X. MCCLOSKEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3210 East 10th Street in Bloomington, Indiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Francis X. McCloskey Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Francis X. 
McCloskey Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
# Spacewalk Training at Johnson Space Center

NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman, Expedition 40/41 flight engineer, participates in a spacewalk training session on May 14, 2013.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/spacewalk-training-johnson-space-center/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareSize1041x694pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 18, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### McClain *v.*State.

Opinion delivered June 23, 1924.

1. Criminal law — plea of guilty — withdrawal.—Permission to withdraw a plea of guilty, previously entered, is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, under Crawford & Moses’ Dig., § 3076.

2. Criminal law — exercise of discretion — presumption.—Where the court denied a petition to withdraw a plea of guilty, every presumption must be indulged in favor of the court’s proper exercise of its discretion.

Appeal from .Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; *John E. Tatum,*Judge;

affirmed.

*J. S. Utley,*Attorney General, and *John L. Garter,*Assistant, for appellee.

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellant was indicted for felony, and entered a plea of guilty, which the court accepted and upon which the court entered judgment. The judgment entered recites that appellant appeared in person as well as by attorney, and waived arraignment, and entered a plea of guilty. After the entry of the judgment and on the same day appellant, through another attorney, filed his petition praying that the court set aside the judgment and permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty. In the petition it was alleged that appellant was not guilty of the charge against him, and that, in the absence of his attorney, he was “unduly influenced and persuaded to enter a plea of guilty.” On a later day of the term the court heard the *49petition and entered an order overruling it, from which order and judgment an appeal has been prosecuted to this court.

There was no motion for a new trial filed nor bill of exceptions taken in the case — nothing appears in the record save the papers on file and the record entries.

There is a statute (Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 3076) which provides that the court may, at any time before judgment, permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted. It has often been held by this court that permission to withdraw a plea of guilty previously entered is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. *Greene*v. *State,*88 Ark. 290; *Joiner*v. *State,*94 Ark. 198; *Duncan*v. *State,*125 Ark. 4. There is no statute on the subject of withdrawal of pleas after rendition of judgment, but the court has the power to set aside its judgment at any time before the expiration of the term. There is nothing to show that the court abused its discretion, and we must indulge every presumption in favor of the court’s proper exercise of its discretion.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLIFTON T. HASTINGS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35761

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01054-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 27, 2014** 

Before: D. NELSON, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Clifton T. Hastings appeals pro se the district court’s judgment affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Hastings’s third application for

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and

FILED

JUL 01 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

The district court did not err in holding that it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction to decide whether the Commissioner failed to meet an obligation to

retain the record of Hastings’s first application for benefits in 2000. The

Commissioner’s retention or loss of records is not a “final decision” subject to

review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir.

2013). 

The district court also lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the

Commissioner set an incorrect onset date when granting Hastings’s subsequent,

fourth application for benefits. The court had jurisdiction only to review the

Commissioner’s final decision denying Hastings’s third application for benefits. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dexter, 731 F.3d at 980.

Hastings contends that the administrative law judge erred by failing to order

IQ testing because such testing might have established a listed impairment. This

contention lacks merit because the record was adequate to allow for proper

evaluation of the evidence. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th

Cir. 2001). The low average intellectual functionality reported by an examining

2
psychologist would not meet or equal the requirements of the listings. See

Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2013).

Any error in the ALJ’s partial rejection, without explanation, of the opinion

of a non-examining psychologist was harmless because even if the ALJ had

accepted the psychologist’s findings, Hastings’s impairments would not have met

the listings. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012).

We decline to consider additional issues unsupported by argument in the

opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th

Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

3
**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 OCTuS, Inc. a Nevada corporation
        (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        Josie
        Ben Rubi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
        his
        knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 (2)
              The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        OCTuS, Inc., and will be retained by OCTuS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  /s/
                    Josie Ben
                    RubiChief
                    Executive
                    OfficerNovember
                    15,
                    2007
##### 



Re:
    
    Earn-Out Payment Calculation for 2005 Earn-Out Period
     1)
    
    THE THIRD SENTENCE OF SECTION 1.2(B)(II) OF THE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AS
FOLLOWS:
  2)
    
    SECTION 1.2(B)(IV) OF THE AGREEMENT IS AMENDED AND RESTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY
AS FOLLOWS:
  Stonepath Group, Inc.World Trade Center2200 Alaskan Way, Suite 200Seattle, WA 98121T: (206) 336-5400
    
    
    
    F: (206) 336-5401




---



##### 



Very truly yours,STONEPATH GROUP, INC./s/ ROBERT AROVASRobert ArovasAgreed and accepted:
    
    President and Chief Financial Officer
 By:
    
    /s/ EDDIE KELLYEddie KellyShareholders Agentcc:
    
    Jason F. Totah
 Stonepath Group, Inc.World Trade Center2200 Alaskan Way, Suite 200Seattle, WA 98121T: (206) 336-5400
    
    
    
    F: (206) 336-5401




---



##### 



Net Profit Earn-OutsGlobal2005 Net Earnings
    
    $
    3,276,758Income tax Expense
    
    
    2005 Pre-Tax Earnings
    
    $
    3,276,758AdjustmentsCorporate Management Fees
    
    $
    420,000Corporate Technology Fee
    
    
    105,000Underallocated Intl Corp Overhead
    
    
    293,886Amortization
    
    
    68,012New Location Loss (Carryforward)
    
    
    (157,758
    )Sharing of Gajadhar Salary
    
    
    (17,007
    )Quantum at Other Terminals
    
    
    (124,264
    )Jason Salary/Benefits in Corporate
    
    
    (346,800
    )Adjusted 2005 Earnings
    
    $
    3,517,828Earnings Target
    
    $
    2,000,0002005 Earnings Excess/(Shortfall)
    
    $
    1,517,828Prior Year Excess Carryforward
    
    $
    8,007,3632005 Earnings Excess/(Shortfall) Carry to 2006
    
    $
    9,525,1902005 Earn-Out Opportunity
    
    $
    1,000,0002005 Earn-Out Reduction
    
    
    2005 Earn-Out Payments
    
    $
    1,000,000Minimum Target
    
    $
    % Impact of Shortfall to Earn-Out
    
    
    100
    %2002 Excess/(Shortfall)
    
    $
    2,502,9672003 Excess/(Shortfall)
    
    $
    3,292,6592004 Excess/(Shortfall)
    
    $
    2,211,7372005 Excess/(Shortfall)
    
    $
    1,517,828Cumulative Excess/(Shortfall)
    
    $
    9,525,190
 Stonepath Group, Inc.World Trade Center2200 Alaskan Way, Suite 200Seattle, WA 98121T: (206) 336-5400
    
    
    
    F: (206) 336-5401
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=725