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

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

t0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142347-8

PETOSKEY INVESTMENT GROUP, L.L.C., BEAR CREEK PARTNERS, L.L.C., BEAR CREEK PARTNERS I, L.L.C., BEAR CREEK PARTNERS II, L.L.C., BEAR CREEK OARTNERS HOLDINGS I., L.L.C., and BEAR CREEK PARTNE RS HOLDINGS II, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 142347-8 COA: 292811, 294122 Emmet CC: 07-009792-CH BEAR CREEK TOWNSHIP and SPRINGVALE-BEAR CREEK SEWAGE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., not participating due to a fa milial relationship with counsel of
record.
#### In the Matter of Victor Altheus DePonceau, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Decided January 18, 2011

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR FIRSTMARK  CORP. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH
31,  2000  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO THE  FINANCIAL
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,577,172
<SECURITIES>                                       147,302
<RECEIVABLES>                                      174,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                              19,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                      10,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,316,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         10,700
<COMMON>                                         1,100,286
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,140,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,316,606
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   105,890
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    89,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 15,965
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        15,965
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.00



</TABLE>
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended **June 25, 2005**

 

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_  No X

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). 

Yes_  No X

 

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

Yes_  No X

 

Common stock, par value $0.01****per share: 22,426,296 shares outstanding as of February 21, 2006.

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Dennis P. GaugerDennis P. GaugerChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)July 15, 2010
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT





Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of Global Gold Corporation (the "Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:





(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: May 21, 2010
/s/ Van Z. Krikorian

Van Z. Krikorian

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer








Date: May 21, 2010
/s/ Jan E. Dulman

Jan E. Dulman

Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                         Independent Auditors' Consent


Board of Directors
Data Race, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-75800, No. 333-24303, No. 333-24305, No. 333-72505 and No. 333-77713) on Form
S-8 and in the Registration Statements (No. 333-22605, No. 333-42203, No. 333-
53757, No. 333-62147, No. 333-71319 and 333-83595) on Form S-3 of DATA RACE,
Inc. of our report dated September 22, 1999, relating to the balance sheets of
DATA RACE, Inc. as of June 30, 1999 and 1998, and the related statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended June 30, 1999, which report appears in the June 30, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of DATA RACE, Inc.



                                            KPMG LLP

San Antonio, Texas
October 1, 1999
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Steven G. Mihaylo, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Inter-Tel, Incorporated.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report.3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and have:  a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing equivalent functions):  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: November 5, 2004 By:
    
    /s/ Steven G. MihayloName:
    
    Steven G. MihayloTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
 38
#### Hospice at Greensboro, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(7 August 2007)

No. 522P06-2

1. Respondent-Intervenor’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1204)

2. Respondent-Intervenor’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Respondent-Intervenor’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31

4. Petitioners’ Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 08/28/07 Stay Dissolved 11/08/07

2. Denied 11/08/07

3. Denied 11/08/07

4. Dismissed as Moot 11/08/07
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0 587 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSE MARTINEZ, JR. ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including May 2 3 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court April 19 2023

04/19/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0587
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice 2024 Grants Determination and Deficiencies in State Applications


Download file: 2024 Grants Determination and Deficiencies in State Applications
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7208

CHARLES DUNCAN PIPPINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN RAY , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:23

- cv - 00123

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : April 18 , 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and THACKER , Circuit Judges

. Affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Charles Duncan Pippins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7208 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Charles Duncan Pippins, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, as amended, in which Pippins sought to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and raised separate c laims challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. We conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Pippins’ challenges to his sentence pursuant to Jones v. Hendrix , 599 U.S. 465, 471, 477

- 80 (2023), which precludes him from raising such claims in a § 2241 petition. But because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims , see Rice v.
Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 807

- 08 (4th Cir. 2010), we modify this portion of the court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and affirm as modified , s ee 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Ali v. Hogan , 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that dismissal based on “defect in subject matter jurisdiction

. . . must be one without prejudice” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Next, we conclude that Pippins has forfeited appellate review of the portion of the district court’s order dismissing his claims related to the prison disciplinary proceeding because he does not challenge that decision in his informal brief.
See 4th Cir. R 34(b) ; Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the court’s order. Pippins v. Ray , No. 5:23

- cv - 00123

- JPB

- JPM (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 21, 2023). USCA4 Appeal: 23-7208 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED IN PART , AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 23-7208 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 571

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, New York,

as the ‘‘Congresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 †

2

S 571 ES

1 SECTION 1. CONGRESSWOMAN SHIRLEY A. CHISHOLM

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING.

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

4 Postal Service located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn,

5 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Con6 gresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building’’.

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

10 be deemed to be a reference to the Congresswoman Shirley

11 A. Chisholm Post Office Building.

Passed the Senate June 29, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 571

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostShirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building’’. Brooklyn, New York, as the ‘‘Congresswoman al Service located at 1915 Fulton Street in
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marlon R. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10387.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shari Kaufman, Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Marlon R. Lee, San Pedro, CA, pro se.

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 **

Marlon R. Lee appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his 120-month sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Lee’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no arguable grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief, and the government did not file an answering brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

**

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



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bull Run Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarterly period ended February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned 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 to the best of his individual 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:
    
    April 11, 2005Signed:
    
    /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.Robert S. Prather, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
# Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011-2015 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

                                                                          Download file:                       Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011-2015 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeremy Johnson, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 910]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 26, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years followed by five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the provision for postrelease supervision and remanding for further proceedings in accordance with this decision, and otherwise affirmed. Judgment, same court and Justice, rendered September 6, 2006, as amended February 26, 2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentences. However, defendant is entitled to a remand for the sole purpose of imposition of a lawful period of postrelease supervision. The five-year period pronounced by the sentencing court was illegal. The correct period ranges from *l1/2*to 3 years *(see*Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [e]), and we remand to permit the sentencing court to exercise its discretion accordingly. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.