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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

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

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

 

 

March 28, 2018 

s0321 

Order 

 

Clerk 

March 28, 2018 

156602 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 156602 

 COA: 332653 

Branch CC: 14-101331-FH 

VICKI RENEE DICKINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2017 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### United States *v.*Gowdy.

*(District Court, E. D. South Carolina.*

January 12, 1889.)

Claims against United States—False Affidavit.

It is not a ground for quashing an indictment drawn under Rev. St, U. S. § 6479, for aiding and procuring one to make a false affidavit for the purpose of procuring a pension, that the affidavit was in fact made before a proper officer, as that section applies also to the offense of using a genuine but false instrument, knowing it to be false, with intent to defraud the United States.

Indictment under Rev. St. § 5479. On motion to quash.

JET. *A. De Saussure*and *0. M. Furman,*Asst. U. S. Attys.

*1\ M. Qilland*and *J. A.*Kelly, for defendant.

*333Simonton, J.

Defendant is indicted under section 5479, Rev. St. The charge in the indictment is that he procured and aided one Mary Conyers to make an affidavit stating certain things which are false, for the purpose of obtaining a pension and arrears of a pension as the widow of a soldier of the war of 1812. The motion proceeds upon the ground that this section 5479 does not apply to a case in which the affidavit used was in fact taken before the proper officer, even though the statements made in it are false. In the case of *U. S.*v. *Staats,*8 How. 41, the statute of 3d March, 1823, was construed. This statute was subsequently amended by act of Stli June, 1872, by the insertion of the word “affidavit” among the other writings mentioned in the statute, and is incorporated in the Revised Statutes as section 5479. In that case it was held that the act punished not only the crime of forging certain instruments, or altering them when forged, but also the offense of using a genuine but false instrument, knowing it to be false, in support of a claim with intent to defraud the government. This case is decisive of the point made. *The*motion to quash is refused.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0589

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 16, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 7 2022

02/07/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0589
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE BONNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0028-CG-M

)

LEE POSEY DANIELS, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor of 

Respondent Lee Posey Daniels and against Petitioner George Bonner.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00028-CG-M Document 21 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v Nydia Rivera et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 20, 2009;

decided April 30, 2009

*808Motion by New York Insurance Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
EX 10.1 6.30.15


Exhibit 10.1



                
 Compensation for Outside Members of the Board of Directors


	
		
	Compensation Element
	Description

	Initial Term
	Directors will serve an initial three-year term.

	Cash Compensation (1)
	Directors will receive annual cash compensation of $60,000, inclusive of Board and committee meeting attendance fees. The Audit Committee and Compensation Committee Chair roles will receive an additional retainer of $10,000 for Audit and $6,000 for Compensation.

	Equity Grant (1)
	Directors will receive an annual equity grant with a value of $90,000.  The equity grant will time vest annually over three years (i.e. 1/3, 1/3, 1/3).

	Investment
	Directors will hold a minimum of $250,000 in Rexnord stock within five years of appointment (including vested options).

	Expenses
	Rexnord will reimburse Directors for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to their duties as a Director.

	D&O Insurance
	Rexnord will maintain D&O insurance of at least $50 million annually.

	Indemnification
	Rexnord will indemnify Directors to the fullest extent allowed by law.










    







(1) The cash compensation and equity grant will be prorated for partial year service (e.g., directors who join mid-fiscal year).  Cash compensation is paid quarterly in arrears.  


As of May 2015
#### In the Matter of Paolo W. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Paul W., Appellant.

Submitted January 5, 2009;

decided February 19, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 4, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00195

- CR

TAMELA LASHALL WEST , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F19

- 71835

- T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Osborne
Before the Court is appellant’s April 19, 2021 motion to withdraw the appeal.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.2(a). We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

210195f.u05
Do Not Publish
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) /Leslie Osborne//
LESLIE OSBORNE
JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TAMELA LASHALL WEST, Appellant

No. 05

- 21

- 00195

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court C ause No. F19

- 71835

- T. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III, and Nowell participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 4 th day of May, 2021.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification by David C. Warren 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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2005 (the
Report) by eMerge Interactive, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that:



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 Registrant.



/s/    DAVID C. WARRENDavid C. WarrenPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)March 27, 2006
#### Robert E. Judge, Appellant, v New York College of Professional Health, Respondent.

Submitted September 28, 2009;

decided November 24, 2009

Reported below, 2008 NY Slip Op 68025(U); 2008 NY Slip Op 82157(U); 2008 NY Slip Op 88405(U).

Motion for reargument denied *[see*13 NY3d 763 (2009)].
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2582 

To prohibit the use of forfeited funds made available to certain State or 

local law enforcement agencies pursuant to equitable sharing for certain 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of forfeited funds made available to 

certain State or local law enforcement agencies pursuant 

to equitable sharing for certain 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 ‘‘No Federal Funds for 

5 Political Prosecutions Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2582 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FORFEITED FUNDS MADE 

2 AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO EQUITABLE SHAR3 ING. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds or property received 

5 pursuant to section 511(e) of the Controlled Substances 

6 Act (21 U.S.C. 811(e)), section 981 of title 18, United 

7 States Code, or section 524 of title 28, United States 

8 Code, by a State or local law enforcement agency with the 

9 authority to prosecute a criminal case may be used to in10 vestigate or prosecute the President or Vice President, a 

11 former President or Vice President, or a candidate for the 

12 office of President. 

13 (b) CERTIFICATION.—A State or local law enforce14 ment agency referred to in subsection (a) shall certify to 

15 the Attorney General that the law enforcement agency will 

16 comply with subsection (a). 

17 (c) DISQUALIFICATION.—In the case of a State or 

18 local law enforcement agency that the Attorney General 

19 determines has failed to comply with this section, the At20 torney General may not transfer, under section 511(e) of 

21 the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811(e)), section 

22 981 of title 18, United States Code, or section 524 of title 

23 28, United States Code, any property seized by the Attor24 ney General and forfeited to the United States, or any 

25 of the proceeds from the sale of such property to such 

26 State or local law enforcement agency. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2582 IH

1 (d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘can2 didate’’ has the meaning given such term in section 301 

3 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 

4 30101). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[ex1041exchangeagreementsd1.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd2.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd3.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd4.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd5.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd6.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd7.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd9.gif]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd11.gif]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd12.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd13.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd14.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd15.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd16.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd17.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd18.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd19.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd20.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd21.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd23.gif]


[ex1041exchangeagreementsd25.gif]


[ex1041exchangeagreementsd26.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd27.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd28.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd29.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd30.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd31.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd32.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd33.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd34.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd35.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd37.gif]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd39.gif]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd40.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd41.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd42.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd43.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd44.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd45.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd46.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd47.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd48.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd50.gif]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd52.gif]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd53.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd54.jpg]  [ex1041exchangeagreementsd55.jpg]
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






The Board of Directors


Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc.


El Dorado Hills, California




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156961) of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. Our report included an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption in 2009 of FASB ASC 815 (EITF 07-5), Determining Whether an Instrument (or Embedded Feature) is Indexed to an Entity’s Own Stock.






/s/ Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP


Macias Gini & O’Connell LLP


Sacramento, California




May 27, 2011
#### In the Matter of Zhuang Li Cai, Appellant, v M.D. Jamil Uddin, Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 675]

In a “proceeding” to compel M.D. Jamil Uddin to remove a portion of his fence from where it allegedly encroaches on the petitioner’s property, and to recover damages resulting from such alleged encroachment, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), dated March 18, 2008, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence before the Supreme Court established that, at most, the alleged encroachment onto the appellant’s property consisted of one or more fenceposts intruding onto the property by approximately two inches. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly concluded, based on the record before it, that the alleged encroachment was de minimis and properly denied the appellant’s request to compel the respondent to remove the alleged encroachment *(see Wing Ming Props. [U.S.A.] v Mott Operating Corp.,*79 NY2d 1021 [1992]; *Hoffmann Invs. Corp. v Yuval,*33 AD3d 511 [2006]; *Generalow v Steinberger,*131 AD2d 634 [1987]; *but see Robert v*
      *747
      *Kohs,*35 AD3d 178 [2006]). Moreover, based on the de minimis character of the alleged encroachment and the complete absence of any evidence to support the appellant’s claim for damages, the Supreme Court properly declined to award the appellant any damages *(see Wing Ming Props. [U.S.A.] v Mott Operating Corp.,*79 NY2d at 1023; *see also Generalow v Steinberger,*131 AD2d at 635). Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

 

KPMGAuditores Independentes

RuaArquiteto Olavo Redig de Campos, 105 - 11o andar

EdifícioEZ Tower - Torre A

CEP04711-904 - São Paulo/SP

kpmg.com.br

 

Securitiesand Exchange Commission 

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

Ladiesand Gentlemen:

 

Wewere previously principal accountants for Gafisa S.A. and, under the date of April 27, 2018, we reported on the consolidated financialstatements of Gafisa S.A. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2017. On April 27, 2018, we were dismissed. We have read Gafisa S.A.'s statements included underItem 16F of its Form 20-F dated November 11, 2019, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position toagree or disagree with Gafisa S.A that BDO RCS Auditores Independentes were not engaged regarding the application of accountingprinciples to a specified transaction, the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Gafisa S.A.’s consolidated financialstatements and neither a written report was provided to Gafisa S.A. or oral advice was provided that BDO concluded was an importantfactor considered by Gafisa S.A. in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue.

 

Verytruly yours,

 

 

/s/ KPMGAuditores Independentes
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 28, 2010 Before
D ANIEL A. M ANION , Circuit Judge
I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER , Circuit Judge J OHN D ANIEL T INDER , Circuit Judge

No. 08-3219 ] ] DEBORAH A. KENSETH, ] ] Plaintiff-Appellant , ] ] v. ] ] DEAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., ] ] Defendant-Appellee. ]

ORDER The slip opinion of this court issued on June 28, 2010, and amended by order dated June 29, 2010, is further amended as follows: On page fifteen, line 6, “equitably estopped” shall be substituted for “collaterally estopped.” On page 17, “Equitable Estoppel” sh all be substituted for “Collateral Estoppel” as the heading for subsectionA, and “equitable estoppel” shall be substituted for “collateral estoppel” inthe first line following that heading.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 08 C 1 

### Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.
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 on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado
      Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
      2005,
      I, Rafiq A. Sayed,, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge
      and
      belief:




(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: 
      February 13, 2006


/s/
      Rafiq
      A. Sayed


Rafiq
      A.
      Sayed


Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Patricia Moraes, certify that:

 

1.  Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Gafisa S.A.;

 

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

 

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

 

4.  Thecompany’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

 

a)  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)  Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c)  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d)  Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythe annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.  Thecompany’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)  Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date: July 29, 2022