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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135185 & (11) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly In re Board of Trustees of Michigan State Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. University Stephen J. Markman, Justices

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 135185 COA: 280103 Ct of Claims: 07-000026-MZ COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGE, Defendant-Appellee, and

JOSEPH HINZ, Person al Representative, Intervening Party-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Septem ber 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting l eave to appeal, we
DIRECT the Court of Claims to rule on the defendant Board’s motion for summary disposition, filed in Docket No. 07-000026-MZ, within 21 days of the date of this order. In ruling on the motion, the Co urt of Claims shall not enter another order merely stating that the motion is neither grante d nor denied. Instead, the Cour t of Claims shall enter an
order that decides the motion itself.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

C AVANAGH , J., would deny leave to appeal.

W EAVER , J., dissents and states as follows:_______________________________________ __ 2

I dissent from the order directing the Cour t of Claims to rule on the defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

I would deny leave to a ppeal because the Court of Appeals properly denied the complaint for superintending co ntrol because the plaintiff had an adequate legal remedy in the underlying suit. See MCR 7.203 (B)(1) and (4) and MCR 2.116(J)(2)(a).

Writs for superintending co ntrol are governed by MCR 3.301, 3.302, 7.206 (Court of Appeals), and 7.304 (Supreme Court). “If a nother adequate remedy is available to the party seeking the order, a co mplaint for superintending cont rol may not be filed.” MCR 3.302(B). “When an appeal in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, or the recorder’s court is available, th at method of review must be used. If superintending control is s ought and an appeal is av ailable, the complaint for superintending control must be dismissed.” MCR 3.302(D)(2). Superintending control is an extraordinary remedy genera lly limited to determining wh ether a lower court exceeded its jurisdiction, acted in a manner inconsistent with its jurisdiction, or failed to proceed according to law. Dep’t of Public Health v Rivergate Manor , 452 Mich 495 (1996).

K ELLY , J., joins the statement of W EAVER , J.

t0129 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 1, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 4.17

 

	
 
    	

    
	
 
    	
Barristers & Solicitors /   Patent & Trade-mark Agents

 
    
	
 
    	
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

400 3rd Avenue SW, Suite 3700
   Calgary, Alberta  T2P 4H2  CANADA

 
    
	
May 12, 2015
    	
F:  +1   403.264.5973

nortonrosefulbright.com
    


 

CONSENT

 

TRANSMITTED VIA SEDAR

 

TO:                         Alberta Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

 

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

 

Re:                             TransCanada Trust - Short Form Base PREP Prospectus

 

We refer to the Short Form Base PREP Prospectus of TransCanada Trust dated May 12, 2015 (the “Prospectus”) relating to the offering of Trust Notes - Series 2015-A Due 2075.

 

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm name on the fourth page and under the headings “Certain Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations”, “Legal Matters” and “Documents Filed As Part Of The Registration Statement” and to the reference to our opinions under the headings “Certain Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations” in the Prospectus.

 

We confirm that we have read the Prospectus and that we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from our opinions referred to in the Prospectus or that are within our knowledge as a result of the services performed by us in connection with our opinions referred to therein.

 

Yours truly,

 

(signed) “Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP”

 

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP is a limited liability partnership established in Canada.

 

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc. and Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Details of each entity, with certain regulatory information, are at nortonrosefulbright.com. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the members but does not itself provide legal services to clients.
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 Annual Report of The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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 results of operations of the
    Company.


Date: September 25, 2008                        /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The InterGroup Corporation and will be retained by The InterGroup
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1629 

To make hemp, cannabidiol derived from hemp, and any other ingredient 

derived from hemp lawful for use under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act as a dietary ingredient in a dietary supplement, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. POCAN, Mr. COHEN, Mr. TRONE, 

Ms. PINGREE, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. 

BARRAGA ́N, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mr. GROTHMAN, and Mr. GAETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To make hemp, cannabidiol derived from hemp, and any 

other ingredient derived from hemp lawful for use under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as a dietary 

ingredient in a dietary supplement, 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 ‘‘Hemp and Hemp-De5 rived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization 

6 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1629 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF HEMP AND CANNABIDIOL DERIVED FROM 

2 HEMP AS DIETARY INGREDIENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date that is 90 

4 days after the date of enactment of this Act, notwith5 standing section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

6 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(3)(B)), hemp, 

7 cannabidiol derived from hemp, and any other ingredient 

8 derived from hemp shall be lawful for use under the Fed9 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 

10 seq.) as a dietary ingredient in a dietary supplement, pro11 vided that such dietary supplement complies with— 

12 (1) the requirements for a dietary supplement 

13 which contains a new dietary ingredient in section 

14 413 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

15 (21 U.S.C. 350b); and 

16 (2) all other applicable requirements for a die17 tary supplement in the Federal Food, Drug, and 

18 Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the Fair 

19 Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et 

20 seq.). 

21 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) DIETARY SUPPLEMENT.—The term ‘‘dietary 

23 supplement’’ has the meaning given such term in 

24 section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos25 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 321). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1629 IH

1 (2) HEMP.—The term ‘‘hemp’’ has the meaning 

2 given such term in section 297A of the Agricultural 

3 Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o). 

4 (3) NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT.—The term 

5 ‘‘new dietary ingredient’’ has the meaning given 

6 such term in section 413 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

7 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures Fund II L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       8,836,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,297<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,309,575<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,309,575<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               270,673<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               700,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (429,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (429,663)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (429,663)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $28,121, and due
from DWR of $2,176.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $442,866.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $422,538 and accrued
management fee of $23,274.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $(224,879),
net change in unrealized of $236,302, and interest income of
$259,250.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11-00084-CG 

 ) 

DANIEL DWIGHT BROWN, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ORDER

 This matter is before the court on the defendant’s unopposed Motion to 

Continue trial filed on June 22, 2011 (Doc. 26), to which a waiver of speedy trial 

signed by the defendant is attached. 

 Upon due consideration of the grounds cited by counsel, the motion is hereby 

GRANTED. The court finds that a continuance of the trial is appropriate pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(i) & (iv), and that the ends of justice outweigh the 

best interest of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial. Therefore, trial is 

hereby CONTINUED to the August 2011 criminal term, which commences with 

jury selection beginning on August 1, 2011. 

 The clerk is directed to refer this matter to the Magistrate Judge to schedule 

a pretrial conference during the month of July 2011. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2011. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:11-cr-00084-KD-N Document 27 Filed 06/23/11 Page 1 of 1
---



Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



|I, Rick L. Wessel, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

Date:  November 7, 2007



/s/ Rick L. WesselRick L. Wessel
Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICKIE LEE CLOY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00718-KD-N

)

TRACY BOUTWELL, HUEY “HOSS” )

MACK, and MATTHEW SEYMORE, )

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated December 22, 2014, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Huey “Hoss” Mack’s motion for summary 

judgment (Docs. 40, 41, 46) is GRANTED and that all claims against him are DISMISSED

with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that all claims against Defendants Matthew Seymore 

and Tracy Boutwell are DISMISSED with prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(iii), as they are immune from damages in this action.

DONE and ORDERED this the 15th day of January 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00718-KD-N Document 53 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KELVIN FLEMING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:94-cr-00093-LMB; 1:06-cv-01341-LMB) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 30, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Kennedy, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kelvin Fleming seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fleming has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
  32.2

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 Annual Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company)
  on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph
  M. Ramos, Jr., in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | (1) | the Report filed by the
      Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Company for the period covered by the Report.



| | /s/ Joseph M. Ramos, Jr. |  | Dated:  
      April 29, 2004
| | ------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
| |                          | 
| | Joseph M. Ramos, Jr.     | 
| | Chief Financial Officer  | 

A signed original of this
  written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
  within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
  906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be retained by Siebert
  Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
  staff upon request.

---
11327.

#### RAILEY, adm’r, *v.*UNITED LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO.

Decided May 11, 1920.

The errors assigned in the bill of exceptions being the sustaining of a demurrer to two of three counts of the plaintiff’s petition, and the overruling of a demurrer to the answer, and the case being still pending in the court below on one of the counts of the petition, the writ of error must be dismissed.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error.

*John Henry Poole,*for plaintiff.

*Fulwood & Hargrett,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

The record in this case shows that the suit was in three counts, two of which were stricken on demurrer; and that the plaintiff demurred to the defendant’s answer, and the demurrer was overruled. The bill of exceptions assigns error upon the judgment sustaining the demurrer to two of the counts of the petition, and excepts also to the judgment overruling the demurrer *302to the answer. A motion was made to dismiss the bill of exceptions, upon the ground that there has been no final judgment in the case, and that the case upon one of the counts in the petition was still pending. It being true that no final judgment has been rendered in the case, and there being still pending the suit upon one count of the petition, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions must prevail. Park’s Ann. Code, § 6138; *Southern Flour & Grain Co.*v. *Levy Rice Milling Co.,*22 *Ga. App.*554 (96 S. E. 593), and cit.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1687 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1687

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the ``Paul 
                        Ignatius Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. PAUL IGNATIUS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Paul Ignatius Post Office''.
    (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 ``Paul 
Ignatius Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1603 

To repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relating to taxpayer subsidies 

for home electrification, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relating to 

taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, 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 ‘‘Homeowner Energy 

5 Freedom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOMEOWNER ENERGY FREEDOM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The following are repealed: 

8 (1) Section 50122 of Public Law 117–169 (42 

9 U.S.C. 18795a) (relating to a high-efficiency electric 

10 home rebate program). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1603 IH

1 (2) Section 50123 of Public Law 117–169 (42 

2 U.S.C. 18795b) (relating to State-based home en3 ergy efficiency contractor training grants). 

4 (3) Section 50131 of Public Law 117–169 (136 

5 Stat. 2041) (relating to assistance for latest and 

6 zero building energy code adoption). 

7 (b) RESCISSIONS.—The unobligated balances of any 

8 amounts made available under each of sections 50122, 

9 50123, and 50131 of Public Law 117–169 (42 U.S.C. 

10 18795a, 18795b; 136 Stat. 2041) (as in effect on the day 

11 before the date of enactment of this Act) are rescinded. 

12 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

13 50121(c)(7) of Public Law 117–169 (42 U.S.C. 

14 18795(c)(7)) is amended by striking ‘‘, including a rebate 

15 provided under a high-efficiency electric home rebate pro16 gram (as defined in section 50122(d)),’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS