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.

 July 26, 2016

t0718

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2016

150092

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150092

COA: 322748 

Berrien CC: 2013-016473-FC

ARTHUR B. JONES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of February 3, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 

2014 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People 

v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided 

on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to 

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the 

Berrien Circuit Court for consideration of the defendant’s issue regarding the assessment 

of court costs. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6235

MICHAEL AARON LITTLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-12-3-P, CR-87-19-C) Submitted: July 20, 1999 Decided: August 5, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Aaron Little, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Michael Aaron Little appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Little v. United States , No. CA-99-12-3-P (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 2:10-cr-00436-KSH Document 28 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 66
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### United States Parole Commission

          - [8P04091]

# Agency Holding Meeting: 

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.

# Date and Time:

11 a.m., Thursday, July 16, 2009.

# Place:

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters Considered:

The following matters will be considered during the closed portion of the Commission's Business Meeting:

Petition for reconsideration involving one original jurisdiction case pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27.

Approval or disapproval of a hearing examiner appointment.

# Agency Contact:

Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

Dated: July 7, 2009.

Rockne J. Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

 [FR Doc. E9-16471 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
EX-10.23



 Exhibit 10.23 
 REVA MEDICAL, INC. 
 Independent Director Compensation Policy

 Cash Compensation 
 Each
independent director of REVA Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive cash fees from the Company for their services as members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and any committee of the Board as follows:

 

	 	•	 	 Each independent director will receive an annual fee of $35,000 payable for such director’s service for the upcoming year.



  

	 	•	 	 The Chair of the each Board committee will receive an additional annual fee of $5,000 for such Chair’s service for the upcoming year.



 Any independent directors serving a portion of the year shall be entitled to receive such fees on a pro rata basis based on
their length of service during the year. 
 Equity Compensation 
 Each independent director may receive an annual option grant to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at the discretion of the Board, subject to obtaining approval from the Company’s
stockholders in accordance with ASX Listing Rules. Any options granted pursuant to this policy shall vest over four years, with 25% of such options vesting one year from the date of the initial grant, and 75% of such options vesting in equal monthly
installments over the subsequent 36-month period.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,808
<SECURITIES>                                   684,005
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,447,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               748,866
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,146,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          260,295
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,886,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,146,832
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            135,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   135,681
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

[822 NYS2d 468]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered December 20, 2004, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was valid, as it was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570 [1998]) as a condition of the acceptance of his plea of guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree, in satisfaction of all crimes under the indictment (s*ee People v Lopez, supra*at 256; *People v Garcia,*92 NY2d 869, 870 [1998]; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]), thus foreclosing review of his claim that his plea allocution was insufficient to establish the crime he pled guilty to.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM MARCEL BOYCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:91-cr-00114-03; 3:05-cv-00070) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Marcel Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Marcel Boyce seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion with prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Boyce has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyce’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-2001
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-2000
[CASH]                                               0
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                       0
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                             1934
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                     431804
[COMMON]                                      (433738)
[OTHER-SE]                                      (1934)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                         0
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                  1934
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    (1934)
[EPS-BASIC]                                          0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
Case 3:10-cv-03269-AET-LHG Document 8 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 49
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, v Sheldon Scott et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 132]

There is no merit to respondents’ argument that the timeliness of the proceeding under CPLR 7503 (c) should be measured from service of their attorney’s April 16, 2007 letter notifying petitioner of their intention to arbitrate their “uninsured motorist claims.” That letter gave no indication whether such claims were being brought under the lack-of-coverage or hit-and-run provision of the uninsured motorist claim section of *466the subject policy. Rather, timeliness should be measured from service of respondents’ May 30, 2007 demand to arbitrate. That was the first notice given by respondents that their claims were being brought under the hit-and-run provision, and thus when petitioner first learned that it had a ground for seeking a stay of arbitration, namely, respondent passenger’s statement to petitioner shortly after the accident that there was no physical contact with the offending vehicle *(see Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Hobson,*67 NY2d 19 [1986]; *cf. Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jimenez],*78 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1991]). No hearing was required since the lack of physical contact was undisputed. We have considered respondents’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
Law Offices

SCIARRA & CATRAMBONE, L.L.C.

A Limited Liability Company

1130 Clifton Avenue - Suite #3

Charles J. Sciarra* Clifton, New Jersey 07013 New York Office

Jeffrey D. Catrambone* Tel: 973-242-2442 The Woolworth Building

Matthew R. Curran Fax: 973-242-3118 233 Broadway 18th Floor

 www.sciarralaw.com 212-406-1700

Of Counsel

Cathie Perselay Seidman*

Alan Serrins ** April 2, 2013

*Admitted NJ & NY Bars

**Admitted NY Bar

Via ECF

Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J.

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Courthouse, Room 7050

492 E. State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Re: Bayliss 

v. New Jersey State Police, et al.

Docket No.: 11-cv-0890

Our File No.: 12-386 

Dear Magistrate Goodman:

The undersigned’s firm represents Defendant Sergeant Richard Wambold. I am in receipt

of Mr. Bowens’s correspondence of today’s date to the Court. Therein, Mr. Bowens states he is in

receipt of Wambold’s motion to seal certain documents but he has not been provided a copy of the

documents to seal.

Please be advised that pursuant to the confidentiality order in this matter, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 5.3, a copy of the documents we seek to seal was not

publicly filed on ECF. Instead, pursuant to instructions the undersigned received from the Clerk’s

Office, the subject documents were filed as a separate docket entry (docket entry #85) under

temporary seal pending the Court’s determination of the motion.

Yesterday, simultaneous with the electronic filing, my office forwarded courtesy hard copies

of the motion along with the subject documents to Your Honor’s chambers and to counsel of record

subject to the confidentiality order. We anticipate that courtesy copies should be delivered tomorrow

morning. 

In the meantime, prior to filing this correspondence, I forwarded via email a copy of the

subject documents to Mr. Bowens with an explanation of the above. I anticipate this should resolve

any issues arising from Mr. Bowens’ letter of today’s date.

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 87 Filed 04/02/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 546
Bayliss v. New Jersey State Police, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-0890

Letter to the Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J.

April 2, 2013 Page 2 of 2

I thank the Court for its attention and courtesies.

Very truly yours,

Sciarra & Catrambone, L.L.C.

By: Matthew R. Curran /s/ 

Matthew R. Curran

MRC/m

Enclosures 

cc: Robert B. Woodruff, Esq. (Via ECF)

John M. Bowens, Esq. (Via ECF)

Linda G. Harvey, Esq. (Via ECF)

Client

NCO

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 87 Filed 04/02/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 547
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0589

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TIMOTHY ERIC RITESMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 21, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 15 2024

05/15/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0589
Exhibit 10.37

 

Executive Park West III

4716 Gettysburg Road

Mechanicsburg, PA

 

Second  Addendum to Lease Agreement

 

This  Second Addendum is made as of the 1st day of November 2012 by and between Old Gettysburg Associates III, LP a Pennsylvania limited partnership (“Landlord”), and Select Medical Corporation a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”).

 

BACKGROUND:

 

A.            Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Office Lease Agreement dated June 17, 1999 (as amended by the First Addendum dated April 25th, 2008 thereto, the “Lease”) pursuant to which Landlord leased to Tenant, and Tenant leased from Landlord, approximately 43,919 rentable square feet of space in the building located at 4716 Gettysburg Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.  All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Lease.

 

B.            Landlord and Tenant now desire to amend the Lease as hereinafter set forth.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:

 

Effective January 1 2013 the following terms contained in the Basic Lease shall be amended as follows:

 

1.              On January 1, 2013 rent shall increase by 2% to $28.58/rsf and remain fixed until December 31, 2017.

 

2.              Beginning January 1, 2018 rent shall increase by 2%.  Thereafter, rent shall increase annually on January 1st by 2%

 











 

All other terms and conditions contained in the Lease and not amended hereby remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have caused this Second Addendum to be duly executed.

 

 

	
 
    	
Landlord: Old   Gettysburg Associates III, LP
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ John M. Ortenzio
    
	
 
    	
Select Realty Investments I, LLC as General Partner
    
	
 
    	
John M. Ortenzio, Manager
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
    	
November 1, 2012
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Tenant: Select Medical Corporation
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Michael E. Tarvin
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Michael E. Tarvin
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
(Print name)
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
    	
November 1, 2012
#### UNITED STATES v. COLUMBIA GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.

Civ. A. No. 16.

District Court, D. Delaware.

July 25, 1940.

*359Stewart Lynch, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., and John S. L. Yost and William- L. McGovern, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Douglas M. Moffat (of Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood), of New York City, and Clarence A. Southerland (of Southerland, Berl, Potter & Leahy), of Wilmington, Del., for defendants.

NIELDS, District Judge.

Motion under sub-division (e) of rule 12 of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.

The complaint charges defendants with having entered into a continuing combination and conspiracy in the early part of 1930 to restrain interstate commerce in natural gas among the States of Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan, and to monopolize and attempt to monopolize such trade and commerce by crushing the American Fuel and Power system, the only competitor of the Columbia system engaged in transporting gas from the Kentucky fields to markets in said States. In furtherance of such conspiracy the complaint further charges said defendants with attempting to prevent any future competition from the American Fuel and Power Company or any of its component parts by obtaining possession of the physical assets of those companies or control of any reorganized company or companies operating those physical assets.

Defendants have filed thirty requests for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars. Nos. 12, 14, 17 and 28 were withdrawn at the hearing.

This jurisdiction adheres to the fundamental distinction in the law of pleading between pleading and proof. Where amplification of allegations of ultimate facts is sought a motion for a more definite statement or a bill of particulars will usually be granted. Where proof of the allegations of the bill is sought, such a motion will be denied. Here the requests in every instance are for proof. Proof, when appropriate, may be obtained upon filing interrogatories. The motion must be denied.

Defendants also move under rule 10(b) for an order directing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint in which the allegations are further sub-divided into numbered paragraphs, each of which shall be limited to the statement of a single set of circumstances. In view of the multiplicity of facts involved in a charge of violation of the anti-trust laws, this motion must be denied.

An order may be submitted.