alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

December 22, 2020

v No. 348462

Jackson Circuit Court

DAISHA MONIQUE COOPER, LC No. 16-004527-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and FORT HOOD and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part)

I respectfully concur with the majority in all respects other than the majority’s 

determination that resentencing need not occur before a different judge.

The limited explanation given by the trial court in imposing an upward departure sentence 

include a clear expression of the trial judge’s personal opinions about defendant and her case. The 

judge stated that “the jury found what they found and from the court’s perspective, my perspective, 

[defendant] got one hell of a break by the verdict,” he expressed how the jury could have “easily 

come back with second-degree murder in this case,” and then said that defendant’s guidelines did 

not “take into account the benefit that she got from that jury verdict.” The trial judge’s personal 

views about what the jury should have done and how the sentencing guidelines failed to account 

for the benefit that defendant received would likely impact his opinion on resentencing. See 

People v Pillar, 233 Mich App 267, 270-271; 590 NW2d 622 (1998).

Accordingly, on the basis of the trial judge’s statements, I conclude that it would be 

unreasonable to expect the judge to be able to put out of his mind previously-expressed views and 

findings without substantial difficulty. See People v Walker, 504 Mich 267, 285; 934 NW2d 727 

(2019). Even if the original trial judge could view the case again with a clear mind, this Court 

ordering reassignment to a different trial judge solely for the purpose of resentencing would not 

“entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of 

fairness.” See id. at 286 (quotation omitted). Finally, because the trial judge seemingly imposed 

a sentence based on the conviction it believed defendant ought to have received, rather than the 
-2-

conviction defendant did receive, I believe reassignment would best preserve the appearance of 

justice. See id. at 285-286. I would remand to a different judge for resentencing.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
Exhibit 32

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

I,
Shaw Hong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:
June 30, 2008

| |  | By: | /s/SHAW HONGShaw HongChief
Executive Officer, President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I,
Peter V. Leigh, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:
June 30, 2008

| |  | By: | /s/PETER V. LEIGHPeter V. LeighChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
ETN 12.31.2012 EX 10(e)


Exhibit 10(e)




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EATON CORPORATION 
EXCESS BENEFITS PLAN II
(January 1, 2008 Restatement)
WHEREAS, the Corporation maintains in effect the Eaton Corporation Excess Benefits Plan II under a January 1, 2008 Restatement, as amended (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Pension Administration Committee reserves the right to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Pension Administration Committee wishes to amend the Plan in order to reflect the corporate restructuring of Eaton Corporation pursuant to which common shares of Eaton Corporation will be converted into ordinary shares of Eaton Corporation plc.
NOW THEREFORE, Section 2(b) of the Plan is amended, effective as of the Merger Effective Time described in the Transaction Agreement dated May 21, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Transaction Agreement, dated June 22, 2012, and Amendment No. 2 to the Transaction Agreement, dated October 19, 2012, between Cooper Industries plc, Eaton Corporation, Abeiron Limited, Comdell Limited, Turlock B.V., and Turlock Corporation, in its entirety to read as follows: 
(b)    “Board of Directors” means the Board of Directors of Eaton Corporation plc.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Pension Administration Committee has caused this Amendment to be executed through duly authorized persons on this 29th day of November, 2012.


PENSION ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE


By:  __________________________________ 


Title: _________________________________
Case 2:11-cv-01706-FSH-PS Document 3 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 20
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 24, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00476

- CR

Paul Casarez Mata, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, J USTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay cos ts, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
Exhibit 10.7

 

 

January 11, 2008                 Re: Service about being independent director and Chairman of the Audit Committee of China Pharma Holdings, Inc                  Dear Mr.Baowen Dong         On behalf of the Board of Directions and the Company, I am pleased to welcome you to join the Board of the China Pharma Holdings, Inc as an independent director and Chairman of the Audit Committee. I look forward to working with you. Your starting date will be the date of the board approves your engagement and your engagement for this term will end on the date of the next annual shareholders meeting.                  Your compensation will consist of the following:

|  | 1)      | A retainer ofRMB 40,000 per year, payable quarterly within 5 days of the start of the quarter; |
|--|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

If you agree to the terms and conditions stated above, please sign and date this letter below.                  I look forward to working with you and sincerely hope that your service will be enjoyable and rewarding.                  Sincerely                                    Chairman of the Board         China Pharma Holdings, Inc                           Response:        This letter correctly sets forth the understanding ofMr. Baowen Dong.                 By: ___________________________

Date:__________________________
LKQ-EX10.15_2012.12.31-10K


Exhibit 10.15










M E M O R A N D U M 


	
			
	TO:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	FROM:
	Compensation Committee
	 

	 
	 
	 

	DATE:
	____________, 2012
	 

	 
	 
	 

	RE:
	2012 Bonus Program
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 






You have been selected to participate in the LKQ Corporation Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) for purposes of your potential 2012 bonus.  The potential bonus described in this letter is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the MIP (a copy of which is attached to this letter).


		
	Performance Period:
	January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012




		
	Performance Goals:
	The diluted earnings per share of LKQ Corporation ("EPS") for the Performance Period; provided, however, that EPS shall be increased to the extent that EPS was reduced in accordance with GAAP by objectively determinable amounts due to:




1. A change in accounting policy or GAAP;
2. Dispositions of assets or businesses; 
3. Asset impairments; 
4. Amounts written off in connection with any refinancing of the Company's credit facility; 
5. Losses on interest rate swaps resulting from mark to market adjustments or discontinuing hedges; 
6. Board approved restructuring charges; 
7. Losses related to environmental, legal, product liability or other contingencies; 
8. Changes in tax laws; 
9. Losses from discontinued operations; and 
10. Other extraordinary, unusual or infrequently occurring items as disclosed in the Company's financial statements or filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.









In addition, the Compensation Committee shall adjust the Performance Goals or other features of the Award that relate to the value or number of the shares of common stock of the Company to reflect any stock dividend, stock split, recapitalization, combination or exchange of shares, or other similar changes in such stock.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may reduce the Actual Award payable to you below that which otherwise would be payable pursuant to the Payout Formula or may eliminate the Actual Award.


		
	Target Award:
	___% of Base Salary




Payout Formula:            
            
		
	EPS ($)
	Percentage of Base Salary


		
	Less than ___
	0


		
	___
	___


		
	___
	___


		
	___
	___


		
	___
	___


		
	___
	___


		
	___
	___


		
	___
	___
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5027 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

411 Midway Avenue in Mascotte, Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Eric Ramirez Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. BOYD, Mr. 

MEEK of Florida, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. 

CRENSHAW, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, 

Mr. STEARNS, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 411 Midway Avenue in Mascotte, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Specialist Eric Ramirez Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST ERIC RAMIREZ POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 411 Midway Avenue in Mascotte, 

6 Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist 

7 Eric Ramirez Post Office’’. 
2 

•HR 5027 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Specialist Eric Ramirez 

5 Post Office. 

Æ
PAUL J. FISHMAN

United States Attorney

ALEX KRIEGSMAN

Assistant United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Suite 700
Newark, NJ 07102

Tel. (973) 645-2847

Fax. (973) 297-2010
alex.kriegsman@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HON. DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH
CR

Ger. No. 11-388 (DMC)

ORDER
AMED REY PARRA, et al.

This matter having been opened to the Court by PAUL J. FISHMAN United
States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, ALEX KRIEGSMAN, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, appearing, for an Order setting a status conference in the above-
referenced matter, and the Court having considered the matter,

yy ST :
Tis onthis Z(~ day of Deceméart ,2011

130 hah
ORDERED that a status conference will be held on Jan. 9 _,2012/in the

lns Peboom 2.

HONORABLE DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.
United States District Court

above-referenced matter.
PROB 12A

(7/93)

United States District Court

for

District of New Jersey

Report on Offender Under Supervision

Name of Offender: Kamar Williams Cr.: 11-00404-002

PACTS #: 61647

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: THE HONORABLE SUSAN D. WIGENTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date of Original Sentence: 03/07/20 12

Original Offense: POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A CONVICTED FELON

Original Sentence: 30 months imprisonment, 36 months supervised release

Special Conditions: Special Assessment, Substance Abuse Testing, Alcohol Treatment, Drug Treatment

Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Date Supervision Commenced: 02/08/2014

NONCOMPLIANCE SUMMARY

The offender has not complied with the following condition(s) of supervision:

Violation N umber Nature of Noncompliance

On October 27, 2015, Williams tested positive for marijuana.

U.S. Probation Officer Action:

The offender will be referred to Narcotic Anonymous meetings to attend weekly sessions for two months.

We will notify Your Honor of any additional noncompliance.

Respectfully submitted,

By: Kellyanne Kelly

Senior U.S. Probation Officer

— Maureen Kelly

2015.11.1808:51:35 -0500

Date: I lr18i2015

Case 2:11-cr-00404-SDW Document 37 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 99
Prob 12A — page 2

Kamar Williams

The court’s endorsement ofthis petition will serve as an official written reprimand to the offender

unless the court directs that alternative action be taken asfollows:

F Submit a Request for Modifying the Conditions or Term of Supn ision

F Submit a Request for Warrant or Summons

rOther .

d

\ t I

Case 2:11-cr-00404-SDW Document 37 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 100
Case 1:09-cr-00720-JBS Document 8 Filed 08/05/10 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 25
Case 1:09-cr-00720-JBS Document 8 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 26
Case 1:09-cr-00720-JBS Document 8 Filed 08/05/10 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 27
Case 1:09-cr-00720-JBS Document 8 Filed 08/05/10 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 28
Case 1:09-cr-00720-JBS Document 8 Filed 08/05/10 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 29
Case 1:09-cr-00720-JBS Document 8 Filed 08/05/10 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 30
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. 09-03]

                    In the Notice of Complaint and Assignment in Docket 09-03, served July 7, 2009 and appearing in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 13, 2009 (74 FR 33441-33442), the next-to-last sentence of the first paragraph is corrected to read, “Complainant states that Respondent has agreed not to contest this Complaint in order to allow Complainant to secure the release of FMC Bond No. 18084F, in partial payment of the total damages incurred by Complainant.”                

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-16949 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinion s filed August 1 5 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00445

- CR

IN RE DARRELL WILLIAMS , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1491754

MEMORANDUM MAJORITY OPINION

On Monday, June 17, 2024, relator Darrell Williams filed a petition for writ
of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Hazel
B. Jones , presiding judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County, to rule on “a motion for improper sentence.”2 To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show (1) the relator has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining the relief sought; and (2) what the relator seeks to compel involves a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Flanigan , 578 S.W.3d 634, 635 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig

. proceeding) (c iting In re Powell , 516 S.W.3d 488, 494

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding))

. A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to

act. Flanigan , 578 S.W.3d at 635. “A trial court is required to rule on a motion
within a reasonable time after the motion has been submitted to the court for a ruling or a ruling on the motion has been requested.” Id. at 636 ( q uoting In re Foster , 503 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) ). As the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court
with a sufficient record to establish relator's right to mandamus relief. Flanigan , 578 S.W.3d at 636 ; see Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j) (relator must certify “that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record ”).
To be entitled to mandamus relief for a trial judge's failure to rule on a motion within a reasonable time, the record must show both that the motion was filed and brought to the attention of the judge for a ruling. Id

. To establish that the motion was filed, relator must provide either a file stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion was in fact filed and is pending before the trial court.3 Id. Merely filing a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought to the trial court's attention for a ruling because the clerk's knowledge is not imputed to the trial court. In re Ramos , 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief because he has not provided this court with any mandamus record . We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher, Justices Jewell and Spain. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 10.28



 



THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT







This THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of July 26, 2012, by and between Higher One, Inc. ("Higher One") and Cole Taylor Bank ("Bank").







WHEREAS, Higher One and Bank are parties to that certain Deposit Processing Services Agreement dated as of March 29, 2012, as amended (the "Deposit Processing Services Agreement"); and







WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the terms of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment; and







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:







1.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the definitions indicated in the Deposit Processing Services Agreement.







2.  Section 2.11 of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:







2.11  Joint Oversight Policies. The parties shall us best efforts and work together in good faith to reach an agreement on the terms of the Joint Oversight Policies on, or prior to, May 3, 2012, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Parties; provided, that the Parties hereby further agree to finalize the terms of an execute the Joint Oversight Agreement covering financials, or prior to, July 27, 2012. Furthermore, the Parties shall draft, finalize and execute a transition agreement addressing each Party's responsibilities in conjunction with the future termination of this Agreement and Depositor Program on, or prior to, August 31, 2012.







2.  This Amendment may not be amended, waived or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of each party hereto.







3.  Except as specifically amended and modified hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to its conflict of laws rules.







4.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.












COLE TAYLOR BANK







By: /s/ Randall T. Conte


Its: CFO












HIGHER ONE, INC.







By: /s/ Mark Volchek


Its: CEO