alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132687(65)(66) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, SUSAN COLLIER, Personal Representative Justices 

of the Estate of SILVIO GIANNETTI; and

GIANNETTI INVESTMENT CO., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 132687 

 COA: 268827 
 Wayne CC: 92-230961-CK

JERRY PRUZINSKY,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

ANNA MARIE PRUZINSKY, 

Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The 

motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 26, 2007 order is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. “No appeal” 

provisions in contracts have long been recognized by this Court as valid and binding. 

Wyrzykowski v Budds, 325 Mich 199, 201-202 (1949); Cole v Thayer, 25 Mich 211 

(1872). 

CAVANAGH, J., would deny reconsideration without the further statement found in 

the majority’s order. 

d0424 

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. 

April 27, 2007 

Clerk
---



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 Quarterly Report of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Douglas Orr, Chief Financial 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, that to my knowledge:





|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  July 22, 2008



/s/ R. Douglas OrrR. Douglas Orr
Chief Financial Officer
#### Smithers & Higdon *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Intoxicating Liquors — Sale by Druggists.

Compounds of medicines with, alcoholic liquors, made in good faith as .medicines for medical use and not as a device to avoid the law regulating or prohibiting the sale of liquors, are not prohibited by the law, and a druggist may make and sell them for use as medicine without violating the law.

APPEAL PROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 7, 1876.

*Robbins &*Haynes, *Conklin & McBeath, for appellants.*

*T. E.*Moss, *for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The second instruction given by the court made the guilt of the defendants depend alone on the question whether they mixed ardent spirits with drugs and sold the compound to be drunk on or adjacent to the premises where sold. It is a fact of which courts may take judicial cognizance that many medicines made and sold as such and in good faith are compounded with alcoholic liquors. If such compounds are made and sold in good faith as a medicine, and not as a device to avoid the laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of liquors, the seller commits no offense. *Anderson v.*Commonwealth, *9*Bush 569. Whether the appellants were *bona ñde*druggists and the article proven to have been sold by them was- sold in g-ood faith to be used as a medicine, or was compounded and sold in that form as a mere device for eluding the legal consequences of selling liquors in violation of law, should have been submitted to the jury by proper instructions. '

If the appellants were not *bona ñde*druggists, or intended what they sold to be used as a beverage, or knew that it was being so used by those to whom they sold it, they are guilty of a violation of law; but if they were such druggists, and in good faith believed the compound had useful medicinal properties, and sold it as medicine without intending to evade or violate the law, and sold it only to such persons as they believed desired it as a medicine, and not because it contained spirituous liquors, they should be acquitted. Any other rule would encroach upon the legitimate sphere of the druggist, and improperly interfere with the necessities of those who may be sick. No'other error is perceived.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial upon principles not inconsistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.02
  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 SWK Holdings Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Burgon, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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 32.02, 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 31, 2010
/s/ Paul BurgonPaul Burgon

Interim Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
  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.
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 Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 18, 2014.

# PLACE:

 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

 Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                         The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Small Mine Development,*                         Docket Nos. WEST 2011-1351-M, et al. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that a refuge must be installed during exploration or development of an ore body when the operator decides not to construct a second escapeway.)                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

 Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28986 Filed 12-5-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) ALSD Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 2 (Page 2 Not for Public Disclosure)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

United States of America

)

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Case No:

USM No:

Date of Original Judgment:

Date of Previous Amended Judgment:

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of the defendant the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10

and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

DENIED. GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as otherwise provided, all provisions of the judgment dated shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date:

Judge’s signature

Effective Date:

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

VICTOR HUGO SERMENO 11-00152-CB

09207-035

April 30, 2012

✔

✔

260 240 months

April 30, 2012

September 1, 2015 s/Charles R. Butler, Jr.

November 1, 2015 Charles R. Butler, Jr., Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00152-TFM-C Document 571 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>
#### William Chamberlin *v.*Dudley Young.

Ej ectment — J udgment.

Where by the terms of the judgment it is left for the clerk or sheriff to determine judicially what land is claimed in the petition for possession, such judgment is void for uncertainty. The determination of what land plaintiff was entitled to the possession of, was for the court, and should be incorporated in the judgment.

APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

November 11, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The petition describes by metes and bounds the no acres of land claimed by appellee, and charges that appellant, without right, holds, possesses and detains about 15 acres in the southeast corner of said 110-acre tract.

The jury found for the appellee the land claimed in the petition. The verdict is sufficiently specific. A writ of habere facias, directing the sheriff to place appellee in possession of all the land, not exceeding fifteen acres, held by appellant in the southeast corner of the boundary of the no-acre tract, could be executed. But the judgment rendered on the verdict is void for uncertainty. It is in the language of the verdict. It leaves either the clerk or the sheriff to determine, judicially, what land is claimed in the petition. This fact should have been determined by the court, and its determination should have been incorporated into the judgment. The judgment should describe the land with sufficient certainty to enable the minis1 terial officers to execute it, without reference to the pleadings.

We see no error in the action of the court up to the finding by the jury. There was proof conducing to show that Jennings entered under appellee, that Duncan entered under Jennings, and that Chamberlin entered under Duncan. If such were the case, appellee could recover without showing title in himself.

Chamberlin denies that hei is the tenant of appellee, and therefore was not entitled to notice to quit the possession. If Chamberlin held under an oral contract of purchase, entered into either by himself or Jennings, and desired to have the questions of rents, profits, and improvements settled by the chancellor, he should have set up his claim, and asked to have the cause transferred to equity. It is too late after verdict to raise this question.

For the error as to the form of the judgment, it is *reversed.*The *215cause is remanded with instructions to render judgment on the verdict, in the manner and form herein indicated.

*A. R. Clark, for appellant.*

*W. W. Ireland, for appellee.*
Any mention of commercial products and company names is for information only; it does not 

imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST.

Last Updated 11/13/2020

SANS Titanium cells supplies

Description Supplier Part #

Stainless Steel 10-32 thread screw plug

- Viton O-ring seal

Beswick MSP-1000-316-V

Stainless Steel 10-32 Male thread to long barb straight 

- Viton O-ring seal

Beswick MH-1008-1-316-V

Replacement Viton O-ring Beswick OR-516-40-V

O-Ring, Dash Number 117

- Actual width: 0.103”

- Material: FEP-Encapsulated Silicone

McMaster 9319K91

O-Ring, Dash Number 117

- Actual width: 0.103”

- Material: chemical-Resistant Viton® Fluoroelastomer

McMaster 9464K81

O-Ring, Dash Number 117

- Actual width: 0.103”

- Material: High-Temperature High-Purity Silicone

McMaster 9396K139

Socket Head Screws, 8-32 thread

- Length: 1/4"

- Material: 18-8 Stainless Steel

McMaster 92196A190

Commercial Quality Windows, A1 fused Quartz, Optical grade

- Diameter: 25.4mm 

- Thickness: 1.59mm 

Esco Optics P310063

Machining facilities (previously used by NCNR)

Name PGI RKL Technologies, Inc.

Contact 8527 Calle Alameda St NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113

Phone: (505) 884-5782

Contact: Tony Benavidez

245 Citation Circle

Corona, CA 92880

Phone: (951) 738-8000

Contact: Roy Hornstein

http://www.rkltech.com/
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LIONEL BRADLEY, DOC #T52652, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-450

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed December 19, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Christopher C. 

Sabella, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### Alex ALEXANDER, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 01-3165.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 7, 2001.

ORDER

Petitioner having paid the required filing fee, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the petition for review is REINSTATED.

Respondent should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of filing of this order.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                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 on Form 10-K of Nashua Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Andrew B. Albert, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.


                                                /s/ Andrew B. Albert
                                                --------------------------------
Dated: March 18 , 2005                          Andrew B. Albert
       ---------------                          Chairman, President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0046

_________________

MIKE BORSETH AND GERI L. BORSETH,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

ABSAROKEE WATER AND SEWER 

DISTRICT,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

On March 25, 2022, the mediator for this appeal filed a report stating that the case 

has settled. Nothing further has been filed.

Therefore, and pursuant to M. R. App. P. 7(7)(b),

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 4 2022

05/04/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0046
#### William McGlashen *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Sale of Whisky by a Physician.

A defendant cannot claim exemption from the penalty denounced by law against selling intoxicating liquors because he is a physician.

Sale of Whisky by Physician.

A physician may make a sale of intoxicating liquors, if made in good faith and for medical purposes only. Such physician cannot legally sell for any other purpose.

APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

December 8, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The grounds relied on for a new trial were: 1st, that the court misinstructed the jury; and 2d, that the verdict was against the evidence. With the last ground this court has nothing to do. Appellant claims exemption from the penalty denounced by law against retailing intoxicating liquors in Bullitt county, because he was a practicing physician.

The court instructed the jury that if such was the case, and the whiskey was sold in good faith and for medical purposes only, they should acquit. This was all appellant could ask; to allow physicians *238to sell fox- othex* than medical purposes would be to disregard the plain provisions of the law.

*R. J. Meyler, for appellant.*

*John*Rodman, *for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,057,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,529,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                   238,563
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,767,978
<PP&E>                                       1,413,548
<DEPRECIATION>                                 544,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,689,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,652,496
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,762,829
<PREFERRED>
<COMMON>                                       103,852
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,899,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,689,370
<SALES>                                      2,638,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,638,495
<CGS>                                          777,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,819,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,911,523)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,911,523)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
#### Mathew Branham *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Evidence.

In a criminal ease where thei defendant was charged with the larceny of a watch, it was error for the court to refuse to permit the defendant to prove that before he knew he was suspected of the crime, he exhibited the watch to persons and inquired of them whether they had lost it and whether they knew to whom it belonged and stated to them that he had just picked it up in the yard and desired to find the owner.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 20, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

We need not consider the question raised as to the variance between the proof and the indictment.

The court instructed the jury that they could not find the appellant guilty unless they believed from the evidence that the watch charged to have been stolen was “a German silver hunting case watch.” This is the exact description given in the indictment. If the jury disregarded this instruction, and found against the evidence, the circuit court had the right and power for that reason to grant appellant a new trial, but this action of that court in this regard is not subject to the revisory power of this court.

The appellant offered to prove that on the morning the watch is alleged to have been stolen, and before he was suspected of the theft by any one present, and before he knew or could have known that the owner of the watch suspected him, and before any search had been made, that he exhibited it to two persons and asked one of them if he had lost it, and both of them if they knew to whom i‘t *582belonged, and stated that he had just picked it up in the yard, and desired to find the owner.

*Owen & Ellis, for appellant. T. E. Moss, for appellee.*

The court refused to allow those facts to go to the jury. This was error. The exact question was decided by this court in the case of *Tipper v. Commonwealth,*1 Met. 6, and also in the subsequent case of *Carter v. Commonwealth*in an unpublished opinion. In the last-named case the court examined the common-law authorities and was satisfied that they sustained the doctrine announced in the Tipper case.

Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded for a new trial upon principles consistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 21.1

Gaiam Subsidiaries

|Subsidiary                     |  | State of Incorporation
|------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Gaiam.com, Inc.                |  | Colorado              
|Gaiam Direct, Inc.             |  | Colorado              
|Gaiam Energy Tech, Inc.        |  | Colorado              
|Gaiam Holdings, Inc.           |  | Colorado              
|Gaiam International, Inc.      |  | California            
|Gaiam Shared Services, Inc.    |  | Colorado              
|Gaiam Travel, Inc.             |  | Colorado              
|Real Goods Trading Corporation |  | California            



QuickLinks
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

UNITED	STATES	OF	AMERICA,

v.	

VICTOR	HUGO	SERMENO,

																Petitioner/Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CRIMINAL	NO.

11-00152-CB

CIVIL	NO.

14-00391-CB

FINAL	JUDGMENT

Pursuant	to	separate	order	entered	this	date,	it	is	hereby	ORDERED,	ADJUDGED	

and	DECREED that	Petitioner’s	motion	to vacate,	set	aside,	or	correct	sentence	filed	

pursuant	to	28	U.S.C.	§	2255	be	and	hereby	is DENIED.

DONE and	ORDERED	this	the	2nd day	of	March,	2015.

s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00152-TFM-C Document 527 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>