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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

140877 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140877 

 COA: 294726 

Genesee CC: 92-047903-FC 

CONNELL LENSEY HOWARD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 23, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0554

_________________

GARY TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

GEORGE ANTHONY TAYLOR and

ANNE MARIE TAYLOR,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellee’s response brief 

filed electronically on April 11, 2024, this Court has determined that the brief does not 

comply with the below-referenced Rules and must be resubmitted. 

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(d) requires that the statement of the facts contained in the 

brief reference the pages or parts of the record at which material facts appear. Appellee's

statement of the facts cites only sporadically, and insufficiently, to the record.

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(f) requires a summary of the argument before the argument 

portion of the brief. The summary of the argument should include a heading identifying it 

as a separate section. The summary should be a clear and concise statement of the 

arguments made in the body of the brief. Appellee’s brief does not contain a summary of 

the argument.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the 

Appellee shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing 

the revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rules and that the Appellee shall 

serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

04/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0554
those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained 

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief.

The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellee and to all 

parties of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Dirk Sandefur

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 12 2024
Exhibit 21.1
 List of Subsidiaries
  Percentage of VotingNAME
    
    Jurisdiction of Organization
    
    Securities OwnedAmerican Locker Security Systems, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    100%Canadian Locker Company, Ltd.
    
    Dominion of Canada
    
    100%(1)Security Manufacturing Corporation
    
    Delaware
    
    100%ALTRECO, Incorporated
    
    Delaware
    
    100%Prosper Ally Limited
    
    Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China

    
    100%
 
 (1)
    
    Owned by American Locker Security Systems, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           1,322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (179)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,055
<PP&E>                                           6,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,817
<BONDS>                                          4,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,882)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,256
<SALES>                                         12,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,017
<CGS>                                           10,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (131)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    65
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,557)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,557)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,557)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Scott M. Fancher, Petitioner, v Mary L. Kessler, Respondent. Scott A. Otis, Attorney for the Children, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 6.)

[976 NYS2d 909]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered September 11, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for violation of an order of custody.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Kessler v Fancher*(112 AD3d 1323 [2013]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Bindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of AssuranceAmerica Corporation. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the transition period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Lawrence Stumbaugh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Robert J. Cormican, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each 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 results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the transition period covered by the
            Report.


                                    /s/ Lawrence Stumbaugh
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Lawrence Stumbaugh, Chief Executive Officer

                                    March 26, 2004


                                    /s/ Robert J. Cormican
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    Robert J. Cormican, Senior Vice President
                                    and Chief Financial Officer

                                    March 26, 2004


                                                                            F-29
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

96-1717.

#### Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc.

Stark App. No. 1995CA00207. This cause came on for further consideration upon the motion of *amicus curiae,*Gun Owners Foundation, for leave to file memorandum in support of appellant’s motion for reconsideration. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XI(2)(C) prohibits the filing of an untimely motion for reconsideration,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the motion be, and hereby is, stricken.
DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

96-2375.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Vazquez.

This cause originated upon the filing of a Final Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Upon consideration of the report, this court ordered, on April 23, 1997, that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months and that six months of the suspension be stayed, with a period of probation for one year on conditions. On May 5, 1997, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration that includes as Exhibit 1 a document titled “Brief of Respondent in Support of Objections to the Findings of Fact and Recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline,” which was due December 10, 1996. S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C) prohibits the filing of a brief that is not timely tendered for filing. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that Exhibit 1 to respondent’s motion for reconsideration (“Brief of Respondent in Support of Objections to the Findings of Fact and Recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline”) be, and hereby is, stricken.
Media Contact: Mary Parker

(202) 336-3470

mary_parker@nigc.gov

www.nigc.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2020 Indian Gaming Revenues of $27.8 Billion Show a 19.5% Decrease

WASHINGTON, DC – Tuesday, August 17th, 2021 – Today, National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC) Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer and Vice Chair Jeannie Hovland released the Fiscal Year 

2020 (FY 2020) overall Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) figure. FY 2020 revenues totaled $27.8B, a 

decrease of 19.5% over FY 2019.

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the FY 2020 GGR results. Unlike previous years, the NIGC 

administrative regions experienced a FY 2020 decline of more than 13% in GGR. The Rapid City 

Region experienced the largest decrease of 36.6%. Graphics are available for download on the NIGC

website and highlight the decreases across all NIGC regions.

“This Gross Gaming Revenue decrease was expected; the unknown was just how much of an impact 

COVID-19 had on Indian gaming. Every year, the annual GGR figure tells a story about Indian 

gaming’s successes, contributions to Indian communities, and economic impacts. This was highlighted 

even more during the pandemic. Nevertheless, tribes were on the forefront of creating standards, 

developing new safety protocols, and sharing community resources. I foresee this decrease as only a 

temporary setback for Indian gaming,” Chairman Simermeyer said.

The GGR figure is an aggregate of revenue from 524 independently audited financial statements, 

of 248 federally recognized Tribes across 29 States. The GGR for an operation is based on the

amount wagered minus winnings returned to players.

“Despite the limits and uncertainty of the last year, it is important to focus on the sacrifices of and 

economic refuge provided by tribes and the community impacts. Tribal gaming has shown resilience 

and commitment, and continues to develop new roads to economic stability. I look forward to seeing

Indian gaming continue to lead the way in efforts to reduce the economic impact of the COVID-19 

pandemic,” Vice Chair Hovland said.
For more detailed information, refer to our National Indian Gaming Commission website.

###

The National Indian Gaming Commission’s mission is to support tribal self-sufficiency and the integrity of Indian gaming through 

effective regulation. Together with tribes and states, the NIGC regulates more than 524 gaming establishments operated by 248 tribes 

across 29 states. To learn more, visit www.nigc.gov and follow us on Facebook, Twitter.and LinkedIn.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,138,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,138,701
<PP&E>                                       5,721,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,859,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,382
<BONDS>                                      1,369,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,427,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,859,911
<SALES>                                        150,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,108
<CGS>                                           48,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,985
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,985
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,985
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13706]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Medically Underserved 
Areas for 2010

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of Medically Underserved Areas for 2010.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has completed 
its annual determination of the States that qualify as Medically 
Underserved Areas under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
Program for calendar year 2010. This is necessary to comply with a 
provision of the FEHB law that mandates special consideration for 
enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive covered health services in 
States with critical shortages of primary care physicians. Accordingly, 
for calendar year 2010, the following states are Medically Underserved 
Areas under the FEHB Program: Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. For the 2010 
calendar year, no new States have been added.

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ingrid Burford, 202-606-0004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEHB law (5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(2)) requires 
special consideration for enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive 
covered health services in States with critical shortages of primary 
care physicians. This section of the law requires that a State be 
designated as a Medically Underserved Area if 25 percent or more of the 
population lives in an area designated by the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) as a primary medical-care manpower shortage area. 
Such States are designated as Medically Underserved Areas for purposes 
of the FEHB Program, and the law requires non-HMO FEHB plans to 
reimburse beneficiaries, subject to their contract terms, for covered 
services obtained from any licensed provider in these States.
    FEHB regulations (5 CFR 890.701) require OPM to make an annual 
determination of the States that qualify as Medically Underserved Areas 
for the next calendar year by comparing the latest HHS State-by-State 
population counts on primary medical-care manpower shortage areas with 
U.S. Census figures on State resident populations.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
John Berry,
Director.
[FR Doc. E9-13706 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extractd from Form 10-K for
the period ended January 2, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000


<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jan-2-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-4-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jan-2-2000
<CASH>                                            19,800
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    452,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (11,300)
<INVENTORY>                                      224,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 810,300
<PP&E>                                         1,443,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                   748,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,000,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            712,600
<BONDS>                                          411,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          68,800
<OTHER-SE>                                       525,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,000,000
<SALES>                                        3,100,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,100,500
<CGS>                                          2,676,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,893,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  10,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                51,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  115,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                      41,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               91,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                           (500)
<NET-INCOME>                                      91,100
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       3.72


</TABLE>
| 1.   | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Atwood Oceanics, Inc.; |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|