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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 

June 7, 2019

Order 

Clerk

June 7, 2019

158333(39)

158335(33)

TOMRA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 158333

v COA: 336871

Ct of Claims: 16-000118-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

TOMRA OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 158335

v COA: 337663

Ct of Claims: 14-000091-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the second motion of defendant-appellant to extend 

the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before June 12, 2019.
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the Annual Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael S. Fields, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL S. FIELDS  
|                      |  |  |  | Michael S. Fields      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CA 10-0156-CG-C 

MICHAEL B. BENDOLPH, : 

 Defendant. : 

 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

and DECREED that, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

judgment by default is rendered in favor of plaintiff United States of America and against 

defendant Michael B. Bendolph in the amount of $14,770.45 (i.e., principal of $5,533.00, 

prejudgment interest at 7% per annum in the amount of $9,237.45 as of March 31, 2010), plus 

prejudgment interest from March 31, 2010 through the date of judgment, and post judgment 

interest at the legal rate of 0.31%, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, 

Section 1961, until paid in full, and court costs. 

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00156-CG-C Document 14 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Lynn
Powers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2012, of Gaiam, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

Date: April 1, 2013



/s/ Lynn PowersLynn PowersChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Order filed, February 20, 2018.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-18-00028-CR

JUSTIN DOUGLAS HOLT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Case 16-CR-0643

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due 02/13/2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. 

The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has 

not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we 

issue the following order.

We order, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal, 

if any, within 30 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Charles G. Cooper, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Bay View Capital Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: May 10, 2004 /s/ Charles G. CooperCharles G. CooperPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer
10747.

#### Bellinger *v.*Jones *et al.*

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “Tlie 'first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by tlie Supreme Court, unless tlie plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” Civil Code (1910), § 6204.

2. In granting the new trial the presiding judge passed the following order; “This was a proceeding brought against the defendants as intruders, and the burden was on the plaintiff not only to establish his right to *108possession, but also to show that the defendants acquired possession in bad faith. Bad faith, as applied to this case, means that when the defendants took possession they must have known, or at least had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the plaintiff’s title and right of possession was superior to theirs. In other words, they must have taken possession with knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect that their title was bad. It appears, from the evidence, that both parties have a deed, the general description in which may include the land in dispute. The defendants claim under a deed dated in 1902, and the description in that deed is sufficient to cover the few acres in dispute between the parties. While the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that the predecessors in title of the plaintiff had been in the uninterrupted possession of this tract for many years prior to his purchase, a careful examination of the evidence fails to disclose any testimony which would authorize a finding that when the defendants took possession of the land they knew the facts in reference to this prior possession of plaintiff’s predecessors in title. Constructive knowledge is not sufficient to show bad faith. There must be actual knowledge. There is no such a thing in the law as constructive bad faith. There being no evidence, as I construe it, to authorize a finding that the defendants had such actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s title as would charge them with bad faith, and the fact that they took possession in the plaintiff’s absence not alone being sufficient for this purpose, I am constrained to grant a new trial, on the ground that the verdict is without evidence to support it.” The trial judge did not err in granting the new trial for the reason assigned. See *Nichols*v. *Chandler,*46 *Ga.*479.

Decided April 7, 1920.

Eviction; from city court of Albany — J. E. Pottle, judge pro hac vice. June 11, 1919.

*S. B. Lippitt,*for plaintiff.

*Milner & Farkas,*for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BARRY MCCORMICK, a/k/a Dut-lo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-94-39-H)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm because Appellant's

motion was untimely. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Lexington, Louisville & Cincinnati R. Co. *v.*George A. Castleman.

■Cost Bonds — Non-Resident Plaintiffs.

The failure of a defendant to move to dismiss because no cost bond is filed amounts to a waiver of the right he has to have the action dismissed.

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

November 24, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The failure of a non-resident plaintiff to execute a bond for costs at the time he institutes his action, cannot be taken advantage of by being pleaded as matter in abatement. We do not doubt that a statement in the answer of the fact of the non-residency, and of the failure to execute the bond, may be made the foundation of a motion to dismiss the action. But in this case no such motion was made, and we are constrained to hold that the failure to make the motion to dismiss amounted to a waiver of the right secured to defendant litigants by Sec. 5, Chap. 26, General Statutes.

The original answer does not show that the receiver of the railroad company was appointed by the Louisville Chancery Court, prior to the time the moneys in the hands of the garnishee were *884earned. If he was not, it is plain the title to these moneys did not, and could not pass to him in virtue of his subsequent appointment. The facts that Monroe was the agent of the railroad company, and that his possession was that of his principal, amounts to nothing in a casé of this character. Upon a proceeding to enforce a judgment after a return of no property found, moneys in the possession of the debtor himself can be reached.

*Morton & Parker, for appellant.*

*Smith & Shelby, for appellee.*

The averment in the amended answer that the mortgage to Douglas covers the earnings and profits of the defendant railroad, is but the averment of a conclusion of law. The stipulations contained in the mortgage are not set out in the answer, and no copy thereof was filed with it.

Neither the answers of the company nor the response of the garnishee show title in either the receiver or the mortgagee, and we are therefore of opinion that the court below did not err in applying the attached property to the satisfaction of appellee’s judgment.

Judgment *affirmed.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75103-75104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Parts 81 and 82

[BIA-2014-0006; K00103 12/13 A3A10; 134D0102DR-DS5A300000-
DR.5A311.IA000113]
RIN 1076-AE93


Secretarial Election Procedures

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Department of the Interior will 
extend the comment period on the proposed amending regulations 
governing Secretarial elections and petitioning procedures to January 
16, 2015.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule published October 9, 2014 (79 FR 
61021) must be received by January 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

--Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The rule is 
listed under the agency name ``Bureau of Indian Affairs.'' The rule has 
been assigned Docket ID: BIA-2014-0006.
--Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f995988c8b9c95d7908b96979a95968c9db99b9098d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b070a1e190e0745021904050807041e0f2b09020a450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>. Include ``Part 81'' in the subject 
line of the message.
--Mail or hand-delivery: Chief, Division of Tribal Government Services, 
Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the 
Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 4513--MIB, Washington, DC 20240.

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the 
comment period (see DATES) will be included in the docket for this 
rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those 
listed here will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Chief, Division 
of Tribal Government Services, Central

[[Page 75104]]

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs at telephone: (202) 513-7641.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On October 9, 2014, we published a proposed 
rule amending 25 CFR parts 81 (Secretarial Elections) and 82 
(Petitioning Procedures), combining them into one Code of Federal 
Regulations part at 25 CFR part 81. See 79 FR 61021. On October 20, 
2014, we published a notice announcing three consultation sessions. See 
79 FR 62587.
    The proposed rule is available at: http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/ORM/SecElections/index.htm.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-29606 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
11087.

#### Griffin *et al. v.*Hines, director-general.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Amerieus-—■ Judge Harper. October 30, 1919.

*Wallis & Fort,*for plaintiffs.

*Yeomans & Wilkinson, R. T. Hawkins,*for defendant.

Broyles, C. J.

In this case the evidence of the railroad employees (the engineer and fireman of the train that struck and killed the plaintiff’s mule), which showed that they exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence to avoid injuring the mule, was contradicted in several material respects by evidence introduced by the plaintiff. It was therefore a question for the jury to decide whether the presumption of negligence against the defendant, which arose when it was shown that the animal had been killed by the running of one of the defendant’s trains, was rebutted by the evidence adduced; and the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00676-WS-B

WALTER MYERS, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DONE this 6th of April, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00676-WS-B Document 10 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Gary Dean BROAD; Denise Broad, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MANNESMANN ANLAGENBAU AG, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-35263.

D.C. CV-97-00819-BJR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 1999.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before REAVLEY,* FERGUSON, TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

ORDER **

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington in its case entitled “Certification from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gary Dean Broad, Denise Broad, husband and wife, appellants v. Mannesmann Anlagenbau, A.G., appellee,” filed September 21, 2000 decided Washington law with regard to service of process under the Hague Convention.

Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case to the District Court for a redetermination of the litigation.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IM 

SISTEMA 

INTERAMERICANO 

DE METROLOGlA. 

APPROVAL OF 

QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

APROBACIÓN DEL SISTEMA DE 

GESTIÓN DE LA CALIDAD 

National Institute of Standards of Technology (NIST) – USA 

Time and Frequency – Time Scale Difference, Frequency, and Time Interval 

The Quality Management System supporting measurement 

services, as defined in a motion of the Quality System Task 

Force (QSTF), has been reviewed and found to be in 

conformance with the requirement of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 

under the mandate of the Inter-American Metrology System in 

support of the expectations of the CIPM Mutual Recognition 

Arrangement. 

Sally Bruce, Quality System Task Force Chair 

Claire Saundry, President, SIM 

El Sistema de Gestión de Calidad en que se apoyan los servicios 

de medición, según se define en una moción del Grupo de 

Trabajo del Sistema de Calidad (QSTF), ha sido revisado y se 

ha determinado que cumple con los requisitos de ISO/IEC 

17025:2017 bajo mandato del Sistema Interamericano de 

Metrología en apoyo de las expectativas del Acuerdo de 

Reconocimiento Mutuo del CIPM. 

Approval date: 20 May 2021 

Expiration date: 20 May 2026
Exhibit 32.1

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               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 Nortia Capital
Partners, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period
ending April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William J. Bosso,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of
my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,

       i.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and

      ii.   The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


/s/ WILLIAM J. BOSSO
-----------------------------------------
William J. Bosso, Chief Executive Officer

Date:   August 15, 2006