alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard J. Erickson, Respondent, v Cross Ready Mix, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Turner Construction Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted January 3, 2011;

decided February 24, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
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 March 29, 2011

p0321 

# Order

March 29, 2011

142142

RICHARD I. OWENS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142142 COA: 291427 Wayne CC: 07-700248-NI CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12, 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.

Z AHRA 

### , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Mercado, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

— An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, *525J.), rendered on or about April 19, 2012, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 7 (Monday, January 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 1210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5948-000]


Forsee, Gary D.; Notice of Filing

January 5, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 2, 2009, Gary D. Foresee submitted for 
filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, 
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 
825d(b)(2008), Part 45 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
18 CFR Part 45 (2008), and Commission Order No. 664 (2005).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84c2c1d6c7cbeae8edeae1d7f1f4f4ebf6f0c4e2e1f6e7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95d3d0c7d6dafbf9fcfbf0c6e0e5e5fae7e1d5f3f0e7f6bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-254 Filed 1-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6565

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NURSE KIMBERLY MARTIN; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; COLLEGIAL MEDICAL GROUP , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge . ( 8:17

- cv
- 00535

- DKC )

Submitted : November 13, 2018 Decided: December 1 1 , 2018

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tommy Ray Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Par k, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tommy Ray Robinson appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in Robinson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) suit . Part ies to a civil action are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court entered its final judgment on the docket on February 2, 2018. Robinson filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on approximately April 25, 2018, after
the 30

- day appeal period expired.
Howeve r, Robinson’s notice of appeal referenced earlier attempts to appeal that are not reflected on the docket sheet. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether Robinson timely filed a notice
of appeal. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
#### Duke Energy Corp. v. Malcom

Case below: 361 N.C. 111

No. 379A06-2

Defs Petition for Rehearing

Denied 01/22/07
#### In the Matter of Christopher C. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Sherwin C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Nicholas C. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Sherwin C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Steven C. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Sherwin C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[974 NYS2d 793]

In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), entered June 6, 2012, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he abandoned the subject children, terminated his parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the Dutchess County Department of Social Services.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned the subject children by failing to communicate with the petitioner or the subject children during the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petitions *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; *Matter of Angela Simone S. [Simone M.],*107 AD3d 901 [2013]; *Matter of Jessie Skyler D. [Donna*S.], 88 AD3d 703, 704 [2011]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that a dispositional hearing was not required prior to the termination of the father’s parental rights *(see Matter of Xtacys Nayarie M. [Jose Ruben M.],*74 AD3d 970, 971 [2010]; *Matter of Thomas Z., 4*AD3d 372, 373 [2004]; *Matter of Tashara B.,*299 AD2d 356 [2002]; *Matter of Little Flower Children’s Servs. v Clinton Tracy M.,*222 AD2d 507 [1995]). Angiolillo, J.P, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Diana L. Malone-Barnes, Respondent-Appellant, v Cedric M. Barnes III, Appellant-Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 247]

Egan Jr., J.

Cross appeals from a supplemental order of the Supreme Court (Cerio Jr., J.), entered January 6, 2012 in Madison County, which, among other things, granted plaintiffs cross motion for, among other things, an award of counsel fees.

Of the various arguments raised on these cross appeals, only Supreme Court’s directive regarding the logging and sale of timber upon the marital premises warrants discussion. The parties’ separation agreement is silent with respect to the issue of logging and, insofar as is relevant here, only addresses the circumstances under which the marital premises would be subject to sale. “Trees, permanent shrubbery and bushes form part of the land” *(Allen v Oscar G. Murray R.R. Employes’ Benefit Fund,*112 Misc 156, 161 [1920]) and, as such, the timber at issue is part and parcel of the marital premises. Thus, absent a provision in the separation agreement evidencing the parties’ intent to log the marital premises prior to the sale thereof, Supreme Court erred in directing that the timber existing thereon be logged and sold separately. Accordingly, Supreme *1072Court’s order must be modified to this extent. The parties’ remaining contentions, including plaintiff’s assertion that Supreme Court abused its discretion in its award of counsel fees, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.E, McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the supplemental order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as directed the immediate sale of the timber on the marital premises, and, as so modified, affirmed.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

 Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date:

 11 a.m., Friday, June 12, 2009.

# Place:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

 Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

 Surveillance Matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-12593 Filed 5-26-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

I, Terence W. Tsang, in my capacity as Executive Vice-President, Chief Operating
Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Ashworth, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

         (1) the Quarterly Report of the Registrant, on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended January 31, 2003 to which this certification is attached as an
exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 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
Registrant.

Dated: March 17, 2003         /s/ Terence W. Tsang
                              Terence W. Tsang
                              Executive Vice-President, Chief Operating Officer,
                              Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. IJAZ KHAN SINDHU, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-113 DECISION

On August 24, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years for the offense of Count I: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Distribute (marijuana), a felony.

On February 4, 2010, 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 Martin Judnich who appeared via teleconference. 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 sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was farther 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 wished to proceed.

*20Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
JONATHAN HENRY,

Appellant,

v.

THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL 

CONFLICT AND CIVIL 

REGIONAL COUNSEL,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1107

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

John C. Cooper, Judge.

Jonathan Henry, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael J. Titus, Office of 

Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF FULLHOUSE RESORTS, INC.**

 
| **NAME OF SUBSIDIARY**                  |   | **JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION** |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                    |   |                              |
| Deadwood Gulch  Resort and Gaming Corp. |   | South Dakota                      |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Full House  Mississippi, LLC            |   | Mississippi                       |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Full House  Subsidiary, Inc.            |   | Delaware                          |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Full House  Subsidiary of Nevada, Inc.  |   | Nevada                            |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Gaming  Entertainment, LLC              |   | Delaware                          |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Gaming  Entertainment (Delaware), LLC*  |   | Delaware                          |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Gaming  Entertainment (Michigan), LLC   |   | Delaware                          |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Gaming  Entertainment (California), LLC |   | Delaware                          |
|                                    |   |                              |
| Greenhouse  Management, Inc.**          |   | Michigan                          |

 

----

*50% owned

**85% owned

 

----
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 822

To prevent the retroactive application of changes to Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

Quality Bank valuation methodologies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2005

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To prevent the retroactive application of changes to TransAlaska Pipeline Quality Bank valuation methodologies.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 

4 In this Act: 

5 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

6 means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

7 (2) TAPS QUALITY BANK VALUATION METH8 ODOLOGIES.—The term ‘‘TAPS quality bank valu9 ation methodologies’’ means valuation methodologies 

10 applied for the purpose of establishing monetary ad-
2

•S 822 IS 

1 justments paid by or to shippers of oil on the Trans2 Alaska Pipeline (as authorized by the Trans-Alaska 

3 Pipeline Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) 

4 through the operation of a quality bank to com5 pensate for differentials in the value of shippers’ oil 

6 commingled in the pipeline. 

7 SEC. 2. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RE8 VIEW OF TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE CARRIER 

9 TARIFFS. 

10 Pursuant to the ratemaking authority of the Commis11 sion under section 60501 of title 49, United States Code, 

12 in carrying out a review of Trans-Alaska Pipeline carrier 

13 tariffs, the Commission shall not approve any retroactive 

14 application of TAPS quality bank valuation methodolo15 gies. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

17 This Act applies to orders of the Commission issued 

18 after December 31, 2005.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                          16,051
<SECURITIES>                                       482
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,472
<PP&E>                                          13,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,032)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,831
<BONDS>                                          2,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,377
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,940
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,823)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,823)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,823)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-97063, 333-06419, 333-41321, 333-85105, 333-107738, 333-127163, 333-143820, and 333-160313) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-38105 and 333-46395) on Form S-3 of Epicor SoftwareCorporation of our reports dated March 14, 2011, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Epicor Software Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 2010. 

*/s/*  McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 

Irvine, California 

March 14, 2011
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 QuantRx Biomedical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sasha
Afanassiev, Chief Financial 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 to my 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 results of operations of the Company.


                              /s/ Sasha Afanassiev
                              -------------------------------
                               Sasha Afanassiev,
                              Chief Financial Officer


Date:    August 14, 2006


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


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Form
S-8 pertaining to the NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan and the
NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. 1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan of our
report dated January 26, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 1997