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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

April 15, 2016 

# Order

Clerk April 15, 2016

15 3213

CHAND PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES

, INC

. , Petitioner

- Appell ant

, SC: 15 3213

v COA: 3 23268

Tax Tribunal: 00

- 439143

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD

, Respondent

- Appell ee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the

application is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clay Stone, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 516]

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the *454Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
#### Judith Louise Ludmer, Respondent, v Mohammad A. Hasan, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 661]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated April 15, 2005, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 308 (2) authorizes service of process to be made by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode, coupled with mailing process to the defendant at either his or her last known residence or actual place of business. Jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been strictly complied with *(see McCray v Petrini,*212 AD2d 676 [1995]; *Avakian v De Los Santos,*183 AD2d 687 [1992]; *Foster v Cranin,*180 AD2d 712 [1992]; *Brownell v Feingold,*82 AD2d 844 [1981]). However, a minor error in the address to which a summons is mailed will not render service of process void where “it is virtually certain that the summons will arrive” at its intended destination *(Brownell v Feingold, supra*at 844; *see Donohue v La Pierre,*99 AD2d 570 [1984]). Here, the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the validity of service of process demonstrated that the envelope in which the summons and complaint were mailed was addressed to the correct street address in Bellmore. Even assuming, as the defendant alleges, that the envelope failed to specify a zip code, this omission alone will not invalidate service, particularly where, as here, evidence was submitted that mail addressed to the correct street address in Bellmore would be virtually certain to arrive *(see Richardson v Richardson,*309 AD2d 795 [2003]; *Donohue v La Pierre, supra; Brownell v Feingold, supra; Rochdale Holding Corp. v Neuendorf,*2 Misc 3d 133 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50184[U] [2004]). Schmidt, J.E, Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          27,386
<SECURITIES>                                    15,599
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                        470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,579
<PP&E>                                           4,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,163
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,512
<SALES>                                         38,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,245
<CGS>                                            8,830
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,761
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,913
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   $ 1.13<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   $ 1.02<F1>
<FN>
<F1>INFORMATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128. BASIC AND 
DILUTED EPS HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN PLACE OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, 
RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 634 

Providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 820) to strengthen programs 

authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2019 

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. CLINE, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. 

MCCLINTOCK, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. BIGGS, Mrs. ROBY, and 

Mrs. WAGNER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 820) to 

strengthen programs authorized under the Debbie Smith 

Act of 2004. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in 

3 the House of the bill (S. 820) to strengthen programs au4 thorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004. All points 

5 of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 

6 bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

7 provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 

8 shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 634 IH 

1 amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 

2 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

3 controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

4 the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 

5 recommit. 

6 SEC. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to 

7 the consideration of S. 820. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#     All Disorders  

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTVWZ
View All

## J

Joubert Syndrome
Exhibit 21  List of Subsidiaries

     The subsidiaries of Barnwell Industries, Inc., at September 30, 1997 were:


                                             Percentage    Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                          of Ownership    Incorporation
------------------                          ------------   ---------------

Barnwell of Canada, Limited                      100%      Delaware
Barnwell Hawaiian Properties, Inc.               100%      Delaware
Water Resources International, Inc.              100%      Delaware
Barnwell Management Co., Inc.                    100%      Delaware
Barnwell Shallow Oil, Inc.                       100%      Delaware
Barnwell Geothermal Corporation                  100%      Delaware
Barnwell Mining Co.                              100%      Delaware
Barnwell Overseas, Inc.                          100%      Delaware
Geothermal Exploration and Development Corp.     100%      Delaware
Victoria Properties, Inc.                        100%      Delaware
Barnwell Financial Corporation                   100%      Delaware
NDTX, Inc.                                       100%      Delaware
Barnwell Investment Corporation                  100%      Hawaii
Barnwell Kona Corporation                        100%      Hawaii
WRI Properties, Inc.                             100%      Hawaii
Barnwell Israel, Ltd.                            100%      Israel
Barnwell Oil & Gas, Ltd.                         100%      Israel
Bill Robbins Drilling, Ltd.                      100%      Alberta, Canada
Gypsy Petroleums Ltd.                            100%      Alberta, Canada
Dartmouth Petroleum, Ltd.                        100%      Alberta, Canada
J.H. Wilson Associates, Ltd.                     100%      Alberta, Canada
BDMO 1.1

BDMO Disclosure of Information Revised Jun 02, 2017 Page 1 of 1

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) Policy

Refer to FOM1 130 for Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act procedure.
**Exhibit 10.1**

**Spherix Incorporated**

 

**SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF**

**THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SPHERIXINCORPORATED**

 

Non-employee directors of Spherix Incorporated (“Spherix”) receive thefollowing annual compensation for service as a member of Spherix:

 

•                  Annual retainerof $2,000;

 

•                  Fees of $1,200for each meeting of the Spherix board and each in-person Spherix committeemeeting attended not in conjunction with a board meeting;  and

 

•                  Stock option forshares of Spherix common stock with an exercise price equal to the closingprice on the date of grant. The number of option shares granted annually istypically between one thousand and three thousand for each director. In 2005,2,500 options were granted to each of the outside Directors. In 2004, nooptions were granted to the outside Directors.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Ugo A. Ireh, Appellant, v Nassau University Medical Center et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 907]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Nassau University Medical Center, dated June 21, 2005, not to renew the petitioner’s contract for a fifth-year surgical residency position, the *703petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 16, 2005, which granted the motion of Nassau University Medical Center and Nassau Health Care Corporation, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A resident physician seeking to have his contract to a hospital residency program renewed cannot circumvent the grievance process of Public Health Law § 2801-b *(see Indemini v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.,*4 NY3d 63, 68-69 [2005]; *Gelbard v Genesee Hosp.,*87 NY2d 691, 696 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding because the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies *(see Matter of Podolsky v Daniels,*21 AD3d 559, 560 [2005]; *Matter of Hammond v Village of Elmsford,*8 AD3d 484, 485 [2004]). Crane, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Gardiner International, Inc., et al., Respondents, v J.W. Townsend & Associates, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[852 NYS2d 776]

The damage award of 75% of the search placement fee was contemplated by the partnership agreement. Furthermore, it was not against the weight of the evidence, but was based on a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 498-499 [1978]) by which a rational person could conclude that the search had been initiated by plaintiffs, and that a 75%/25% payment allocation was to be based solely on initiation and not placement.

Plaintiffs did not plead, prove, argue or obtain a jury instruction regarding an alleged credit, so the jury did not err in failing to take any credit into account. We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur-Tom, J.P, Saxe, Gonzalez and Buckley, JJ. *[See*2006 NY Slip Op 30376(U).]
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 Quarterly Report of ICO Global
Communications (Holdings) Limited (Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), J. Timothy Bryan, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company (principal executive officer) and Michael P. Corkery, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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/ J. TIMOTHY BRYAN          |  |  |  | /s/ MICHAEL P. CORKERY                           
|J. Timothy Bryan              |  |  |  | Michael P. Corkery                               
|Chief Executive Officer       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|(principal executive officer) |  |  |  | (principal financial and accounting officer)     
|November 7, 2008              |  |  |  | November 7, 2008                                 

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to ICO Global Communications
(Holdings) Limited and will be retained by ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

CIERA MONIQUE ALLEN, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D17-910 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed October 18, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Kelly P. Butz, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

SILBERMAN, Judge. 

 In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the revocation of Ciera Monique Allen's 

drug offender probation and resulting sentence for possession of hydrocodone. We 

remand only for the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to the trial 

 1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 
- 2 -

court's oral pronouncement. See Jones v. State, 221 So. 3d 736, 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2017); Symes v. State, 193 So. 3d 1067, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). 

 An amended affidavit of violation of probation (VOP) was filed in January 

2017 that alleged one violation of condition 2, two violations of condition 7, two 

violations of special condition 3, one violation of special condition 7, and one violation of 

special condition 8. At the revocation hearing, the trial court stated that it would delete 

the violation of special condition 7, and Allen then admitted to violating the conditions in 

the amended VOP affidavit. But the written revocation order states that Allen admitted 

all conditions stated in the January 2017 amended VOP affidavit. Therefore, we 

remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order to indicate that Allen did not 

admit to a violation of special condition 7. 

 Affirmed and remanded. 

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Order entered November 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01048-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF P.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-12306-T

ORDER

A sealed clerk’s record has been filed in the underlying divorce proceeding. 

The clerk’s record includes the trial court’s July 8, 2022 order denying appellee’s 

motion to seal the divorce decree. Despite this order, the divorce decree is 

included in the sealed clerk’s record. Accordingly, we STRIKE the sealed clerk’s 

record. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, on or before 

November 30, 2022, a sealed clerk’s record with all documents1except the July 8, 

2022 final decree of divorce which shall be filed separately in volume two of the 

clerk’s record without seal.

1 The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s October 25, 2019 order sealing court records.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Ms. 

Pitre and the parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Elias R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 582]

*326Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree and attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After suppressing out-of-court identifications as unduly suggestive, the court found there was an independent source for the victim’s in-court identification. That finding was amply supported by the evidence elicited at the hearing that the victim had seen appellant in school on three earlier occasions on the day he was attacked, and had been able to observe both “distinguishing” marks on one side of appellant’s neck and his unusual hairstyle on those occasions, as well as by the description the victim gave shortly after the attack. That the prior opportunities to observe were brief does not require a different determination, since “even a matter of a few seconds may suffice for independent source purposes” *(People v Williams,*222 AD2d 149, 153-154 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 1072 [1996] [citation omitted]). That the victim did not see the side of appellant’s neck bearing the marks as appellant fled does not undermine the victim’s ability to recognize appellant as the same person he had seen on the earlier occasions that day.

The court’s determination upon the fact-finding hearing was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Although each of the victim’s encounters with appellant was brief, these encounters were sufficient, under all the circumstances, to warrant the court’s conclusion that the victim had adequate opportunities to recognize appellant (see *e.g. People v Hyatt,*162 AD2d 713 [1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 987 [1990]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-05987; No. 333-59941; No. 33-62887; and No.
33-69306) of Michael Baker Corporation of our report dated March 17, 2003
relating to the financial statements, which appears in the 2002 Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 17, 2003
relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 28, 2003
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 26 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
SHARON MARIE PUENTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 99-1068 v. (D. Colorado) UNITED STATES CRIMINAL AND CIVIL DIVISION, FED V, FED VIII, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HOPKINS AND TOCHLER, LLC, BARON PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees. (D.C. No. 98-Z-2669)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This matter is before us on Sharon Marie Puente’s m otion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis so as to appeal the dismissal of her civil action against the United States Criminal and Civil Division, Soci al Security, and others. For the reasons stated in the district court’s order of dismissal filed February 5, 1999, we deny leave to proceed without prepayment of cost s or fees and DISMISS the appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
@conference{1215296,
  author = {Davide Menegazzo and Aaron Rowane and Laura Fedele and Sergio Bobbo and Giulia Lombardo and Mark O. McLinden},
  title = {Compressed liquid density and speed of sound measurements and correlation of the binary mixture {Carbon dioxide (CO2) + 1,1-difluoroethene (R1132a)} at temperatures from 220 K to 350 K},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-25 04:08:00},
  publisher = {26th International Congress of Refrigeration, Paris, FR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936175},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.18462/iir.icr.2023.0173},
  language = {en},
}
#### Skilled Investors, Inc., Plaintiff, v Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., et al., Defendants. Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Menachem Ivcher et al., Defendants, and Baruch Ivcher et al., Appellants.

Submitted July 16, 2012;

decided September 13, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the judgment sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.