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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2015

p1019 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2015

148677

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148677

COA: 309320

Menominee CC: 11

- 003373

- FH

PAUL ANDREW HERRON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 11, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the December 12,

2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance p ending the decision in

People v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been

decided on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered.

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appea l, we REVERSE in part

the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Menominee

Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different

sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge . On remand, the trial

court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court

determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional

constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sente nce. If, however, the trial

court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In all other

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are no t persuaded that the remaining

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

*CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food &Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Steven J. Wagenheim, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated:    May 10, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Steven J. Wagenheim                |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                       |   | Steven J. Wagenheim                    |
|                                       |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### EDWARDS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Civil Action No. 6127.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

June 24, 1947.

*198Robert B. Ivory, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

• Samuel W. Pringle, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

McVICAR, District Judge.

This action is before the Court on defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Defendant owns and operates a railroad between Pittsburgh and St. Louis. Between its Union Station at Pittsburgh and its Fourth Avenue Station is a tunnel. Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant as a trackman. On July 24, 1946, he was working in the tunnel, in which are located two tracks. As he was leaving the tunnel he was struck by a through passenger train of the defendant, traveling in a westwardly direction on the eastbound track, and was injured. He brought this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., alleging that his injuries were caused by negligence of the defendant in failing to furnish a reasonably safe place for him to work and in failing to give a proper warning of the approach of the train which struck him. The jury returned a verdict in his favor in the amount of $30,000. The principal contention of the defendant in its motion for a new trial is that the verdict is excessive.

Plaintiff, at the .time of the accident, was about forty-five years of age, in good health. He had a limited education and his ability to work was limited to labor work. He had made during the two years preceding the accident, approximately $2100 per year in wages. By virtue of the accident his left leg had to be amputated above the knee. He was injured also in the left arm and also there was evidence of head injuries. It could be fairly found from the evidence that he was totally and permanently disabled, or nearly so. He suffered by reason of the accident, considerable pain, suffering and inconvenience. There was also disfiguration. His expectancy of life was at least twenty years. I am, therefore, unable to say that the verdict was excessive.

Defendant also argued that the verdict was excessive because of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. This question was fairly submitted to the jury. The jury is presumed to have given proper consideration thereof. I cannot say, with this additional consideration, that the verdict was excessive.

Defendant also argued that the case should have been continued by reason of its motion, on the ground that plaintiff’s counsel in his closing argument to the jury, made improper comments relating to the length of time that plaintiff would live. The Court refused defendant’s motion for a continuance and instructed the jury that it was not to consider the attorney’s opinion as to plaintiff’s expectancy of life, but that they were to be governed by the evidence solely in determining what that expectancy would be. I do not think that defendant was prejudiced by any improper statement made by plaintiff’s attorney.

The motion for a new trial should be refused.
Order entered April 2 3 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01455
- CV
VENATOR MATERIALS PL C, SIMON TURNER, KUR T D. OGDEN, STEPHEN IBBOTSON, RU SS R. STOLLE, HUNTS MAN CORPORATION, HUNTSMAN INTERNATION AL LLC, HUNTSMAN (HO LDINGS)

NETHERLANDS B.V., Appellant s

V. MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOY EES' RETIREMENT SYST EM AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS , Appellee s On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 02030

ORDER At appellants ’ request, w e abated this appeal pending the issuance of the
mandate in a related appeal. Because t h e mandate in that appeal has issued , we REINSTATE th is appeal

. Before the Court are (1) appellants Venator Material s PLC, Simon Turner, Kurt D. Ogden, Stephen Ibbotson, and Russ R. Stolle’s (collectively, Venatorappellants) April 14, 2020 unopposed motion to dismiss their appeal , (2) appellants

Huntsman Corporation, Huntsman International L LC, and Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands B.V.’s (collectively, Huntsman appellants) April 14, 2020 opposed
motion to transfer their appeal , and (3) appellees’ April 22, 2020 response to the Huntsman appellants’ motion

. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 42.1, we GRANT the dismissal motion and dismiss the Venator appellants’ appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1. Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Miles v. Ford Motor Co ., 914 S.W.2d 135, 137 n.2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), the Court is referring t he Huntsman appellants’ motion and appellees’ response to the Texas Supreme Court. T he
Court does not object to the transfer.
We ABATE th e appeal pending disposition of the motion to transfer.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 484 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 484

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit State and local 
government workers to perform volunteer services for their employer or 
community organization or purpose without requiring the employer to pay 
                           them compensation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 1997

Mrs. Myrick (for herself and Mr. Porter) introduced the following bill; 
    which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational 
                             Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit State and local 
government workers to perform volunteer services for their employer or 
community organization or purpose without requiring the employer to pay 
                           them compensation.

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

SECTION 1. VOLUNTEER SERVICES.

    Section 3(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
203(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(5) The term `employee' does not include any individual--
            ``(A) who is employed by a public agency which is a State, 
        political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental 
        agency, and
            ``(B) who, solely at the individual's option, volunteers to 
        perform services for such public agency or volunteers to 
        perform services for a community organization or purpose,
if the individual receives no compensation for such volunteer services 
or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform 
such volunteer services. No public agency employer may require 
(directly or indirectly) an employee to volunteer to perform services 
for such public agency or for a community organization or purpose.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL SPORLEADER, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Case Number: 1:20-cv-02388 

Honorable Judge Steven C. Seeger 

EVERALBUM, INC., 

 Defendant. 

 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, MICHAEL SPORLEADER, and Defendant, EVERALBUM, INC., by and 

through their attorneys, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this Action with prejudice as to 

Plaintiff’s individual claims, and without prejudice as to the putative class members’ claims, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

By: /s/ Todd M. Friedman By: /s/ Krista S. Schwartz 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 

Attorney No. 6276496 Attorney No. 6238053

Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. Hogan Lovells US LLP 

21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500 

Woodland Hills, CA 91367 San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: (323) 306-4234 Phone: (415) 374-2310 

tfriedman@toddflaw.com krista.schwartz@hoganlovells.com 

 

 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02388 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:94
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2020 a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s 

electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. 

 /s/ Todd M. Friedman 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-02388 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:95
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Calvin Robinson v. Ronald 

Watts, et al. 

Case Number: 20 CV 2928 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

City of Chicago, Philip Cline, Debra Kirby and Karen Rowan 

Attorney name (type or print): Daniel M. Noland 

Firm: Reiter Burns LLP 

Street address: 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5200 

City/State/Zip: Chicago, IL 60606 

Bar ID Number: 6231175 

(See item 3 in instructions) 

Telephone Number: 312 982-0090 

 

Email Address: dnoland@reiterburns.com 

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? Yes No 

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? Yes No 

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? Yes No 

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? Yes No 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel 

 Appointed Counsel 

 If appointed counsel, are you a 

 

 Federal Defender 

 CJA Panel Attorney 

______________________________________________________________________ 

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on June 26, 2020 

Attorney signature: S/ Daniel M. Noland 

 (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.) 

 Revised 8/1/2015 

Case: 1:20-cv-02928 Document #: 19 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:63
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NIKE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKR STORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02615

Judge Sara L. Ellis

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(a)(1)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff Nike, Inc. 

(“Nike” or “Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice as to the following Defendants:

Defendant Name Line No. 

KINGSDEAL 38

KLASEUSC 67

QJUS 69

klee1599 99

yamiyuan 123

Case: 1:20-cv-02615 Document #: 45 Filed: 07/17/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3063
2

Dated this 17th day of July 2020. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ RiKaleigh C. Johnson

Amy C. Ziegler

Justin R. Gaudio

RiKaleigh C. Johnson 

Jake M. Christensen

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.360.0080 / 312.360.9315 (facsimile)

aziegler@gbc.law

jgaudio@gbc.law

rjohnson@gbc.law

jchristensen@gbc.law

Counsel for Plaintiff Nike, Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-02615 Document #: 45 Filed: 07/17/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3064
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Madison Olson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/madison-c-arnoldnasa-gov\/","title":"PACE Mission’s Sujung Go: Helping Humanity and the Environment","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"heWvdMTEzE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/goddard-people\/sujung-go-helping-humanity-and-the-environment\/\">PACE Mission’s Sujung Go: Helping Humanity and the Environment<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people-of-nasa\/goddard-people\/sujung-go-helping-humanity-and-the-environment\/embed\/#?secret=heWvdMTEzE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“PACE Mission’s Sujung Go: Helping Humanity and the Environment” — NASA\" data-secret=\"heWvdMTEzE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/sujung1-rotated.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74
          - [GN Docket No. 12-268; Report 3011]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for reconsideration; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 27, 2014 (79 FR 63883), regarding Petitions for Reconsideration filed of Action in a rulemaking proceeding. The document contained the incorrect deadline for filing replies to an opposition to the Petition. This document revises the deadline for replies to an opposition to the Petition.                    

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before November 12, 2014. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before November 24, 2014.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        A.J. Glusman, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1425, email                         *AJ.Glusman@fcc.gov.*

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 27, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-25456, on page 63883, in the second column, correct the                         **DATES**                         section to read:                    

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before November 12, 2014. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before November 24, 2014.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-26116 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### M’Clelland *v.*Quarles, Assignee, in Error.

*QUARLES*sued *McClelland*before a justice of the peace on a note payable to *Saunders,*without any assignment of the note by the payee. The defendant pleaded, — 1. That he resided in *W.*township, and not in the township in which the suit was commenced, &c,, and that there were justices resident in *W.*township; 2. That the payee, in consideration that the defendant would pay him a certain sum, agreed to forbear to sue for a certain time, &c.; 3. That another suit was pending on the note, &c. Judgment by the justice for the plaintiff.

Appeal to the Circuit Court. The pleas, on the plaintiff’s motion, were rejected. The defendant then offered to prove under the general issue, (the benefit of that plea being given to him by the statute, though it was not filed,) the payee’s agreement to forbear, &c. as stated in the rejected plea, and also payment of the consideration to forbear, &c. This evidence was rejected. Judgment, on the appeal, for the plaintiff.

Objections made to the pleas, — viz. To the first, Because it did not aver that there was a justice in *W.*township not related to either of the parties: To the second, Because it did not aver payment of the consideration for forbearance: To the third, Because it did not aver that the suit pending was between the same parties.

*Held,*that the objections to the pleas would have been good, had they been made before the justice; but not having been there made, the objections were waived. *Held,*also, that the evidence' of the agreement to forbear, &c. should have been admitted. *Held,*also, that the want of the payee’s assignment of the note was a fatal objection to the suit.

*J. B. Ray,*for the plaintiff.

C. *Fletcher,*for the defendant,

The judgment was reversed with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 768 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 768

To restrict the Food and Drug Administration from penalizing retailers 
 for face-to-face tobacco sales that are in accordance with State law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

Mr. LaHood (for himself, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Martinez) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restrict the Food and Drug Administration from penalizing retailers 
 for face-to-face tobacco sales that are in accordance with State law.

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

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION AND TOBACCO SALES.

    If a State has in effect a law which prohibits the sale of 
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to individuals under age 18 
or 19, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not, through the 
Food and Drug Administration, take enforcement action against a 
retailer of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products for the sale in 
such State of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products if such a sale 
is a face-to-face transaction and is conducted in accordance with such 
State law to an individual who is of legal age.
                                 <all>
```