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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

d0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

141022 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141022 

 COA: 295598 

Kalamazoo CC: 08-001572-FC 

ERIC RAYMOND EPINGER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2010 

order 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0089 IN THE MATTER OF: H.R., A Youth Under the Age of 18
. **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 April 14, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 24 2023

03/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0089
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties III 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317331
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES III
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,584
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          10,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (305)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,564
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,310
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                212
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,336
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,548
<EPS-BASIC>                                      15.42<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEPHANIE PARAVANI

, Appellant,

v.

SEBASTIAN SCALORA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1169

[ December 8, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; N ickolaus Hunter Davis , Judge; L.T. Case No.

FMCE 17

- 00 5246 (40)

.

Daniel A. Bushell of Bushell Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Grace Mackey Streicher and Andrew A. Harris, Palm Beach Gardens,

and Nicole P. Vette of Vette Law, Boynton Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Uranerz Energy Corporation - Exhibit 10.2






AMENDMENT AGREEMENT #1 

 

THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the
1st day of January, 2007 

	BETWEEN: 	Uranerz Energy Corporation,
        a company having an office at Suite 1410, 800 West Pender Street, Vancouver,
        B.C., V6C 2V6 

	 	 
	  	(herein called the “Company”)
  
	 	 
	  	OF THE FIRST PART 
	 	 
	AND: 	Catchpole Enterprises
      Inc., of 222 Carriage Circle, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82009; 
	 	 
	  	(herein called the “Consultant”)
    
	 	 
	  	OF THE SECOND PART
  


WHEREAS: 

	A. 	
      The parties entered into a Consulting Agreement dated the
      1st day of March, 2005 (the “Agreement”) whereby the Consultant
      will continue to perform consulting services to the Company as defined in
      the Agreement; and

	 	 
	B. 	
      The parties now wish to amend the
  Agreement;



NOW THEREFORE THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT WITNESSES that the
Agreement is amended as follows: 

	1. 	
      By the deletion of Clause #3.1 of the Agreement in its
      entirety and the substitution therefor of the
following:



3.1        The Company shall
pay the Consultant a monthly consulting fee of US $10,020.00 payable monthly.


	2. 	
      The parties hereby ratify and confirm the Agreement in
      all other respects.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have duly executed
this Agreement effective as of the 1st day of January, 2007. 

 


  Uranerz Energy Corporation 

  Per: /s/ Benjamin Leboe                              
    

          Authorized Signatory 

   

   

  Catchpole Enterprises Inc. 

  Per: /s/ Glenn Catchpole                               
    

           Authorized Signatory
#### In the Matter of Winford Kent Bishop, an Attorney, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Decided April 7, 2009

Appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. SONNY SHALLOW, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-162 DECISION

On January 27,2009, the defendant was sentenced to nineteen (19) years and seven (7) months in the Montana State Prison, with fourteen (14) years and seven (7) months suspended, for violations of the conditions of a suspended sentence for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony. The Court recommends that the Defendant complete all levels of both Chemical Dependency and Sex Offender Treatment available to him at the prison before he is eligible for parole.

On May 7, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the *42sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00223-CV

In the Interest of K.A.G., Appellant

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-FL-420, HONORABLE DULCE MADRIGAL, JUDGE PRESIDING 

On November 9, 2001, the district court signed its final order establishing the parent-child 

relationship, appointing conservators, and setting child support. Jacinto Solis, who by his answer admitted 

paternity and was adjudicated the child=s father, filed a timely motion for new trial. Accordingly, his notice 

of appeal was due February 7, 2002. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 26.1(a)(1). Any motion for extension, express 

or implied,1 was due February 22, 2002. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. On March 29, 2002, the clerk of this 

Court received a document labeled AMotion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Record and Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Appellant=s Brief.@ Attached to the motion was an affidavit of indigence. See 

generally Tex. R. App. P. 20. As neither this Court nor the trial court had ever received a notice of 

appeal, the clerk of this Court considered the document as a notice of appeal. However, that notice was 

untimely. Even the apparent date of its preparation,2 March 1, 2002, is too late to confer jurisdiction on this 

 

 

1

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (receipt of document within fifteen-day 

period to file motion for extension implies motion for extension of time to file that document).

 

2

Soliz is an inmate proceeding pro se. Even if we were to allow for possible problems in mailing the 

document, the preparation date itself is too late.
2

Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (may not alter time for perfecting appeal in civil case). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 16, 2002

Do Not Publish
The Fifty-seventh Season of

THE WILLIAM NELSON CROMWELL and 

E LAMMOT BELIN CONCERTS

National Gallery of Art

nnf tn

f

T*. fct

;LJr MS*»J P:r % s*v •

\ 1 %f *s»

2313th Concert

NATIONAL GALLERY ORCHESTRA

GEORGE MANOS, conductor

Sunday Evening, 6 June 1999

Seven O’clock

West Building, West Garden Court

Admissionfree
PROGRAM

J.S. Bach The Wise Virgins: A Ballet Suite

(Arranged by Sir William Walton) (1940)

1. What God Hath Done Is Rightly Done

(from Cantata No. 99)

2. Lord, Hear My Longing

(Chorale Prelude)

3. See What His Love Can Do

(from Cantata No. 85)

4. Ah! How Ephemeral

(from Cantata No. 26)

5. Sheep May Safely Graze

(from Cantata No. 285)

6. Praise Be to God

(from Cantata No. 129)

Performedby arrangement with Oxford University Press, Inc.

Gabriel Faure Pelleas et Melisande, Op. 80

(1845-1924) (1898)

Prelude

Fileuse

Sicilienne

Mort de Melisande

INTERMISSION

Anton Bruckner

(1824-1896)

Symphony No. 2 in C Minor

(1871-1872)

Third Movement:

Scherzo: Schnell; Schnell-Trio; Gleiches Tempo

Fourth Movement:

Finale: Mehr schnell [sic]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2587 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2587

 To provide a definition of reasonable rate for noncontiguous domestic 
                  ocean trade, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2023

 Mr. Case (for himself and Mr. Moylan) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide a definition of reasonable rate for noncontiguous domestic 
                  ocean trade, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Noncontiguous Shipping Reasonable 
Rate Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. NONCONTIGUOUS DOMESTIC OCEAN TRADE.

    Section 13701(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new paragraph:
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a rate is 
        reasonable if such rate is within 10 percent of a rate set by a 
        comparable international ocean rate index recognized by the 
        Federal Maritime Commission.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Paragas, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 123]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered June 24, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Katz, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the search of his vehicle at police headquarters, which was conducted shortly after *875his arrest, was proper since there was reason to believe that the vehicle might contain additional contraband *(see People v Bla-sich,*73 NY2d 673 [1989]; *People v Milerson,*51 NY2d 919 [1980]; *People v Myers,*303 AD2d 139, 145 [2003]). The defendant’s contention that his postarrest statement should have been suppressed is similarly without merit. His statement “[m]y girlfriend doesn’t know I do this,” was spontaneous and not the product of police interrogation *(see People v Stafford,*39 AD3d 774, 776 [2007]; *People v James,*278 AD2d 340, 341 [2000]). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress both the drugs recovered from inside the vehicle he was driving and his postarrest statement.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Manini,*79 NY2d 561, 573 [1992]; *People v Torres,*68 NY2d 677, 679 [1986]; *People v Mallory, 234*AD2d 913, 914 [1996]; *People v Stringos,*198 AD2d 458, 458 [1993]; *see also People v Cade,*215 AD2d 772, 773 [1995]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The jury could reasonably find that the confidential informant’s testimony was not rendered incredible due to his drug use or criminal history.

The defendant’s contention that certain testimony of Sergeant McNulty and Detective Zee improperly bolstered the confidential informant’s reliability is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1994]; *People v Shankle,*37 AD3d 742, 743 [2007]; *People v Cruz,*31 AD3d 660, 661 [2006]), as is his contention that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the confidential informant’s reliability during summation *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Azaz,*41 AD3d 610, 611 [2007]; *People v Benson,*38 AD3d 563, 564 [2007]; *People v Lee, 34*AD3d 696, 696-697 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Covello, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         373,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               520,527
<PP&E>                                       9,198,826
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,995,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,724,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,598
<BONDS>                                      5,175,439
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (807,931)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,724,106
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,601,211
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,009,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             479,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,111,665
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,111,665
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,111,665
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 4,373.36<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THIS ENTITY IS A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY LINE
REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERSHIP EQUITY.
<F2>THE EPS-PRIMARY LINE REPRESENTS NET INCOME PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Building Control, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chris Sharng,
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:

This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Chris Sharng

Chris Sharng
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                 27,460
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                265,536
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       16,360
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>           120,488
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 30,097
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                  151,019
<LOANS>                               199,274
<ALLOWANCE>                             3,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        407,985
<DEPOSITS>                            324,411
<SHORT-TERM>                           12,339
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     4,926
<LONG-TERM>                            12,941
<COMMON>                                   29
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                             53,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>        407,985
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         4,207
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       2,154
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          227
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        6,588
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      2,778
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2,992
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   3,596
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              81
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                         20
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         3,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,073
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              2,073
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,440
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           3.16
<LOANS-NON>                               136
<LOANS-PAST>                            2,725
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         1,221
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        3,531
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              77
<RECOVERIES>                               23
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                       3,558
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    2,593
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                   965
        

</TABLE>
#### Jernigan v. Herring

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 390

No. 536P06

Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1233)

Denied 05/03/07
Exhibit 99.1

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of LTWC Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A. Goldman, 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, that:



|Date: April 15, 2003 |  |                   
|-------------------- |  | ------------------
|By:                  |  | /s/PAUL A. GOLDMAN

|Name:  |  | Paul A. Goldman                       |  | 
|------ |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---

QuickLinks