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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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

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

 March 10, 2020 

Order 

Clerk

March 10, 2020

159510-1(64)(67)(69)

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 159510, 159511

v COA: 340871, 341589

Midland CC: 13-009864-CK

M.A.P. MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, and

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of (1) the Associated Builders & 

Contractors, Inc. of Michigan, the Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., Western 

Michigan Chapter, and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southeastern Michigan, 

Inc., (2) the Insurance Alliance of Michigan, and (3) the Home Builders Association of 

Michigan to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. The amicus briefs submitted by 

those groups on March 5 and 6, 2020, are accepted for filing.
EX-35.4
(logo) Wilshire
EXHIBIT P

Wilshire Credit Corporation

Payments
P.O. Box 105344; Atlanta, GA 30348-5344
or P.O. Box 7195; Pasadena, CA 91109-7195

Correspondence
P.O. Box 8517; Portland, OR 97207-8517

Phone
(503) 952-7947
(888) 502-0100

Fax
(503) 952-7476

Web Site
www.wcc.ml.com


March 7, 2008


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Attn: Servicer Compliance Team

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
250 Vesey Street
4 World Financial Center, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10080
Attn: Ketan Parekh


Re: Annual Officer's Certificate
    (Wilshire Pool 1605) Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1,
    2007, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer and securities administrator, Wilshire
    Credit Corporation, as servicer, and HSBC Bank USA, National Association,
    as trustee under the Merrill Lynch Alternative Note Asset Trust Series
    2007-0AR2.


I, Ken Frye, Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing, Wilshire Credit
Corporation, (the "Servicer"), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
    year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing
    Agreement (the "Servicing Agreement") has been made under my supervision;
    and

(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
    fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material
    respects throughout such year or a portion thereof.


WILSHIRE CREDIT CORPORATION, SERVICER


Certified By: /s/ Ken Frye
Name: Ken Frye
Title: Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), I, William D. Hibbetts, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



|Dated: August 4, 2004 | /s/WILLIAM D. HIBBETTSWilliam D. Hibbetts
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         June 2-3, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         7 p.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Helen Lin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, NIH/NIAMS/RB, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Plaza One, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-594-4952,                         *linh1@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases  Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 14, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-11828 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32

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 Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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.



June 22, 2006/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. Wood Chief Executive
Officer/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele Nakazawa Chief Financial
Officer




46
STYLE:

v.

RE: Case No. 15-0170

COA #: 12-14-00343-CV

CAROLE ANN WALLACE

BARBARA LOUISE HERNANDEZ

TC#

DATE

2014C-01

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied 

for rehearing of the above-referenced petitio

review.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF 

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 

TYLER, TX 75702
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Michael Ceccon, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Kitcher Resources Inc. 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 his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kitcher Resources Inc. for fiscal year ended January 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Kitcher Resources Inc.





Date: March 12, 2012





/s/ "Michael Ceccon"Michael Ceccon

President, Chief Executive Officer







/s/ "Michael Ceccon"Michael Ceccon

Chief Financial Officer,Principal Accounting Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kitcher Resources Inc. and will be retained by Kitcher Resources Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          38,254
<SECURITIES>                                    28,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,366)
<INVENTORY>                                     40,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,100
<PP&E>                                          50,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,876)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,625
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,248
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,956
<SALES>                                         35,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,186
<CGS>                                           25,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   483
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,433
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,949
<DISCONTINUED>                                (13,669)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,720)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sarah Tepley, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 907]

Appeal by the defendant from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.), dated March 19, 2012, which denied her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court rendered May 4, 2012, convicting her of sexual abuse in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed, as no appeal lies, as of right or by permission, from an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty *(see*CPL 460.10, 460.15). However, the issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment.

The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780 [2005]; *People v Duncan,*78 AD3d 1193 [2010]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, there is no proof that her plea was involuntary or unintelligent *(see People v Adelman,*36 AD3d 926, 927 [2007]). In particular, both the plea minutes and the court’s recollection of the plea proceedings contradict the defendant’s allegation that her alleged *978intoxication at the time of the plea affected her ability to understand the proceedings *(see People v Lopez,*84 AD3d 578 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]; *People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143 [2005]; *People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; *People v Caruso,*88 AD3d 809 [2011]).

Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT C. LEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0063

[May 2, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Leon M. Firtel, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 17-010013CF10A.

No brief filed for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Pichcuskie, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 728]

Appeal from an order of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J.), dated July 13, 2012. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an oral decision determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*In the exercise of our discretion, we deem the appeal as properly taken from the order that was subsequently entered *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]; *see generally Adams v Daughtery,*110 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2013]). Contrary to defendant’s contention in his main brief, County Court properly determined after a SORA hearing that an upward departure was warranted based upon a videotaped statement of a victim and the affidavit of another person who described defendant’s victimization of him when he was between the ages of 12 and 16. We reject defendant’s contention in his main brief that the affidavit was improperly admitted at the hearing because he was never charged with the conduct specified in the affidavit, which we note was conduct that was reported after the statute of limitations had run. *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]), concerning a defendant’s right to confront witnesses, does not apply in SORA hearings *(see People v Bolton,*50 AD3d 990, 990 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 701 [2008]; *People v Dort,*18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 885 [2005]), and an out-of-court statement of a victim constitutes reliable hearsay in SORA hearings *(see generally People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 572-574 [2009]). We reject defendant’s further contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the assessment of 20 points against him for *1345fostering a relationship with the victim in the videotaped statement for the purpose of victimizing him. That assessment of points is supported by the reliable hearsay contained in the victim’s videotaped statement admitted at the hearing *(see generally id.*at 572-573). We reject defendant’s contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing *(see People v Rotterman,*96 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 813 [2012]; *People v Bowles,*89 AD3d 171, 181 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 807 [2012]; *see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Finally, defendant’s contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he should be a level one sex offender is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and we therefore do not address it *(see People v Windham,*10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008]). Present— Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11881]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11694 and <greek-i>11695]


North Dakota Disaster Number ND-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota 
(FEMA-1829-DR), dated 03/24/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/13/2009 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 05/13/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/26/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/24/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of North 
Dakota, dated 03/24/2009, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Rolette, Sheridan, The Turtle Mountain Band of 
Chippewa Indian Reservation.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11881 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

_______________

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(Mark One)

 
| x | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

For the quarterly period ended **July 1, 2006**

 

OR

 
| o | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| For the transition period from |   | to |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|----|--------|

 

 

Commission file number **1-08056**

 

**HANOVER DIRECT, INC.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 
| **Delaware******                                     | **13-0853260******                |
|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State of incorporation)                             | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
| ** **                                           | ** **                        |
| **1500 Harbor Boulevard, Weehawken, New Jersey****** | **07086******                     |
| (Address of principal executive offices)             | (Zip Code)                        |
|                                                 |                              |
| **(201) 863-7300**                                   |
| (Telephone number)                                   |

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. 

Yes x  No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer.  See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one): 
| Large accelerated filer o | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer x |
|---------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------|

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) 

Yes o  No x

 

Common stock, par value $0.01****per share: 22,426,296 shares outstanding as of August 14, 2006.

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MOORE, aka Seal A, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50099.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 21, 2009.

Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Kevin Lally, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gretchen Fusilier, Esq., Carlsbad, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

David Moore appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(iii), and (b)(l)(B)(iii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Moore contends that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. These contentions fail. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1; *see also United States v. Cardenas,*405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005).

Moore also contends that the district court erred by denying a downward departure based on alleged sentencing entrapment. This contention fails because Moore has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he lacked the intent or capability to produce the larger quantity of drugs. *See United States v. Mejia,*559 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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