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.

 November 28, 2018

Order 

Clerk

November 28, 2018

157489(77)

MACOMB COUNTY and AFSCME COUNCIL

25 AND ITS AFFILIATED LOCAL 893,

Respondents-Appellees,

SC: 157489

v COA: 334264 

Michigan Employment Relations 

Comm (MERC): 13-002118

JOHN P. GREINER, 13-002119

Charging Party-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion of charging party-appellant to exceed the page 

limitation for his motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The motion submitted on 

November 20, 2018, is accepted for filing.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60674 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**John Willie Johnson,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:01

- CR

- 167

- 1

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * John Willie Johnson, federal prisoner # 03945

- 043, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government moves to remand th is case for the district court to reexamine whether Johnson alleged extraordinary and compe lling

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion shou ld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 26, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60674 Document: 00516334217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2022No. 21

- 60674

2 circumstances, given this court’s ruling in United States v. Shkambi , 993 F.3d 388, 392

- 93 (5th Cir. 2021), that a district court is not bound by the policy statement in U.S.S.G . § 1B1.13 if a prisoner moves for compassionate release. Johnson does not object to this motion. Accordingly, the Government’s motion is **GRANTED** , the ruling of the district court is **VACATED** , and the case is **REMANDED** for further proceedings in light of Shkambi

. See United States v. Jackson , 27 F.4th 1088,
1091

- 93 (5th Cir. 2022). We express no opinion about the merits of Johnson ’s request for compassionate release. Case: 21-60674 Document: 00516334217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2022
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K of Sona Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ajeeta Pinheiro, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, 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 my knowledge and belief:
 
 1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the   Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.   The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Dated: December 28, 2010
 AJEETA PINHEIRO
 Ajeeta Pinheiro
 Chief Executive Officer,
 President and Director








-1-
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-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I
Donald Rabinovitch, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 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/_____________
Donald Rabinovitch,
President
(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
November 13, 2003



                                       18
1.4 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0398 

ZACHARY RUSK, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

THOMAS ROSEEN, CINDY ROSEEN, and 

SHAWN ROSEEN, 

Respondents and Appellees. 

MAR 2 2 2022 

BOVVell GreerrivvOod 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

On February 4, 2022, Appellant Zachary Rusk (Rusk) filed a petition for rehearing of 

this Court's January 25, 2022, Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of Rusk's 

request for injunctive and declaratory relief with prejudice. Rusk v. Roseen, DA 21-0398, 

2022 MT 21N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 62. Appellees indicated their intent to file a response 

motion opposing Rusk's petition for rehearing by March 11, 2022; however, no response 

was ever filed. We nevertheless proceed with our ruling on Rusk's petition for rehearing. 

Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court seldom grants petitions for rehearing. The rule 

makes clear that this Court will entertain a petition for rehearing on very limited grounds. 

This Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the opinion "overlooked some fact 

material to the decision," if the opinion overlooked a question that would have decided the 

case, or if the "decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the 

Court. M. R. App. P. 20. 

Having fully considered Rusk's petition, the Court concludes that rehearing is not 

warranted under Rule 20. The Court did not overlook material facts or issues raised by the 

parties or fail to address a controlling statute or decision that conflicts with the Opinion. 

Furthermore, in light of our denial of Rusk's petition for rehearing, we decline to rule on 

Rusk's subsequent February 22, 2022 "Motion for Contempt and Forthwith Rescinding of 

[the Court's] Order for Extension of Time." 

03/22/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0398
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties and counsel of 

record. 

, c] 

Dated this C r-- day of March, 2022. 

2 

.g,,6,,.e6--

(7-t- 11-7--

i, .._.

Justicees 

‘„
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3849 

To require commercial airlines to make flight delay information available 

to the public, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require commercial airlines to make flight delay 

information available to the public, 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 ‘‘Air Travel Delay 

5 Awareness Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FLIGHT DELAY INFORMATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter 417 of 

8 title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following new section: 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3849 IS

1 ‘‘§ 41724. Availability of flight delay information 

2 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAKE INFORMATION AVAIL3 ABLE.—The Secretary of Transportation shall require 

4 each air carrier, foreign air carrier, or intrastate air car5 rier that provides air transportation or intrastate air 

6 transportation to make available to the public information 

7 regarding the delay of a scheduled passenger flight not 

8 later than 10 minutes after such information is available. 

9 ‘‘(b) MANNER OF AVAILABILITY.—An air carrier, for10 eign air carrier, or intrastate air carrier shall make the 

11 information referred to in subsection (a) available 

12 through— 

13 ‘‘(1) any Internet website of such air carrier, 

14 foreign air carrier, or intrastate air carrier; 

15 ‘‘(2) any automated recording related to flight 

16 departure or arrival times maintained by such air 

17 carrier, foreign air carrier, or intrastate air carrier; 

18 ‘‘(3) announcements at appropriate airports; 

19 and 

20 ‘‘(4) flight information screens at appropriate 

21 airports.’’. 

22 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the 

23 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor24 tation shall promulgate regulations to implement section 

25 41724 of title 49, United States Code, as added by sub26 section (a). 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

•S 3849 IS

1 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for 

2 chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

3 by adding after the item relating to section 41723 the fol4 lowing: 

‘‘41724. Availability of flight delay information.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                   AURORA ELECTRONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three months ended                       Six months ended
                                              ----------------------------------      ----------------------------------
                                              March 30, 1997      March 31, 1996      March 30, 1997      March 31, 1996
                                              --------------      --------------      --------------      --------------
<S>                                           <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>            
Net loss available to common stockholders     $       (4,045)     $       (7,163)     $       (7,060)     $       (7,057)
                                              ==============      ==============      ==============      ==============

ADJUSTED NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES

Weighted average shares outstanding                    5,963               5,702               5,853               7,552

Incremental shares for exercise of stock
options and warrants and common stock
issuable                                                 718                 595                 718                 595
                                              --------------      --------------      --------------      --------------

Adjusted number of common shares                       6,681               6,297               6,571               8,147
                                              ==============      ==============      ==============      ==============

Net loss per common share                     $        (0.61)     $        (1.14)     $        (1.07)     $        (0.87)
                                              ==============      ==============      ==============      ==============
</TABLE>



                                       13
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 481 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 481

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the period of 
eligibility for health care for combat service in the Persian Gulf War 
 or future hostilities from two years to five years after discharge or 
                                release.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2005

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the period of 
eligibility for health care for combat service in the Persian Gulf War 
 or future hostilities from two years to five years after discharge or 
                                release.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR 
              COMBAT SERVICE IN THE PERSIAN GULF WAR OR FUTURE 
              HOSTILITIES.

    Section 1710(e)(3)(C) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edward Mancharia MUNGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73568.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 21, 2009.

*606Samuel Patrick Ouya Maina, Esq., Law Offices of S. Ouya Maina, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Frederick Reynolds, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture/Money Laundering, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Mancharía Munga, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Kumar v. INS,*204 F.3d 931, 933 (9th Cir.2000), and we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s denial of asylum based on a finding that changed country conditions in Kenya rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ did not provide an individualized analysis of how changed country conditions in Kenya will affect Munga’s well-founded fear. *See Hanna v. Keisler,*506 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007); *see also Mousa v. Mukasey,*530 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2008). In particular, the IJ did not consider Munga’s statements that some of the same KANU members who persecuted him continue to be in power.

Further, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. *See Baballah v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1067, 1079 (9th Cir.2004) (establishing past persecution raises a presumption of eligibility for withholding of removal).

Finally, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because it failed to consider all of the evidence in the record in assessing *607whether it is more likely than not Munga will be tortured if removed to Kenya. *See Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2005) (evidence of past torture should be considered in evaluating the likelihood of future torture); *see also Ka-malthas v. INS,*251 F.3d 1279, 1282-84 (9th Cir.2001).

We therefore remand to the agency for further proceedings to determine, after an individualized determination of changed country conditions, whether Munga is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal and CAT. *See Hanna,*506 F.3d at 938; *see also INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Munga’s remaining contentions fail.

Judge Pregerson requests that pro bono counsel be appointed upon remand.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Annual Report of Javo Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Richard A.
Gartrell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Richard A. GartrellRichard
      A. Gartrell
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              April
      29, 2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Javo Beverage Company, Inc. and will be retained by Javo Beverage Company, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA JOHN OVENS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1581 

[November 19, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312019CF000817A.

Joshua John Ovens, Cross City, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and ARTAU, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[919 NE2d 177, 891 NYS2d 6]

#### M Entertainment, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Laurence Leydier, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Decided October 27, 2009

*828APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Bienstock & Michael, P.C.,*New York City *(Randall S.D. Jacobs*of counsel), for appellants.

*Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP,*New York City *(Christopher R. Belmonte*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

The Appellate Division erred in concluding that plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the requirement that mail service be accomplished by mailing “within the state” *{see*CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]) constituted a “fatal jurisdictional defect” requiring the dismissal of plaintiffs’ appeal against Lawrence Leydier. CPLR 5520 (a) provides:

> “If an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal or notice of motion for permission to appeal, but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken or the court of original instance may grant an extension of time for curing the omission.”

Plaintiffs here timely filed their notice of appeal with the New York County Clerk’s office, thus authorizing the Appellate Division to determine whether to exercise its discretion pursuant to CPLR 5520 (a). By contrast, the movants in *Cipriani v Green*(96 NY2d 821 [2001], *rearg denied*97 NY2d 639 [2001]) and *829*National Org. for Women u Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (70*NY2d 939 [1988], *rearg denied*71 NY2d 890 [1988]) not only failed to timely serve their notices of motion for leave to appeal, but they also failed to timely file those papers with this Court. Thus, in those cases, the Court could not invoke its discretionary authority under CPLR 5520 (a).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
[KPMG LOGO]


KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants
2000 McGill College Avenue                              Telephone (514) 840-2100
Suite 1900                                              Telefax (514) 840-2187
Montreal (Quebec) H3A 3H8                               www.kpmg.ca


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
Henry Birks & Sons Inc.


We consent to the use of our report dated July 4, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Henry Birks & Sons Inc. and subsidiaries
("Birks") as of March 26, 2005 and March 27, 2004 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 26, 2005,
included herein and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in
the Birks' registration statement on form F-4 Amendment No. 1, (Registration No.
333-126936) and the proxy statement/prospectus included herein.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Montreal, Canada
September 8, 2005







KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadian
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 December 1, 2005
(Date of Report  date of earliest event reported)
 BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION
  Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    001-31524
(Commission File Number)
    
    37-1446709
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)8500 Executive Park Avenue
Suite 300
Fairfax, Virginia
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    22031
(Zip Code)
 (858) 481-8500
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17
CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 5.02.
    
    Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors;
Appointment of Principal Officers.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
   BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ PAUL G. KERRIGANPaul G. KerriganExecutive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officerand Treasurer
EXHIBIT
10.9


THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE RESEARCH FUNDING AGREEMENT


This Third
Amendment to the Research Funding Agreement is effective as of March 1, 2007.


On or about
February 29, 2004, Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski and the Burzynski Research
Institute, Inc. (BRI) entered into a Second Amendment to the Research Funding
Agreement, under which funding agreement, inter alia, Dr. Burzynski agreed to
fund the research undertaken by BRI.


The parties now
wish to and hereby agree to extend and amend the Research Funding Agreement by
entering into this Third Amendment to the Research Funding Agreement.


The Research
Funding Agreement shall be continued for an additional one-year term from the
date of this Third Amendment.


In addition, the
Research Funding Agreement shall be automatically renewed for successive
one-year terms, unless one party provides written notice of its intent not to
renew, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of such term.


All other
provisions of the Research Funding Agreement, and where applicable, the
amendments thereto, shall remain in force.


 


	
  

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Stanislaw R. Burzynski

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  BURZYNSKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Stanislaw R. Burzynski

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, President