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

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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 7 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk July 7 , 2017

155152 ( 6 5 )

In re HILL , Minors. SC: 155152

COA: 332923

Alger CC Family Division:

2013

- 004455

- NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the Legal Services Association of

Michigan and the Michigan State Planning Body for Legal Services to submit a joint

amici curiae brief and to extend the deadline for subm itting the amicus brief is

GRANTED. The amicus brief will accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before

August 31, 2017.
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Subjex Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Andrew D. Hyder, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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.
   Date:
      March 22, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Andrew
      D. HyderChairman,
      President
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 4-6. Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be 

employed in management and professional occupations

12 10

12 7

4

19

25 26

23

22

15

24

16

24

36

26

46

17

17 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

White Black or African

American

Asian Hispanic or

Latino

2005

Percent of employed

Service occupations

Sales and office 

occupations

Management, 

professional, and related 

occupations

Natural resources, 

construction, and 

maintenance occupations

Production, transportation, 

and material moving 

occupations

Chart 4-6. Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be 

employed in management and professional occupations

• In 2005, blacks and Hispanics were less likely to be employed in management, 

professional, and related occupations than their white or Asian counterparts. 

• Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites or Asians to work in 

service occupations. 

• In 2005, Hispanics were more likely than whites, blacks, or Asians to work in 

natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos FLORES-ACUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50462.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 2012.

Filed Dee. 19, 2012.

Andrew Richard Haden, Bruce R. Cas-tetter, Peter Ko, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Holly A. Sullivan, Law Office of Holly A. Sullivan, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Juan Carlos FIores-Aeuna was arrested at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry while attempting to enter the United States from Mexico in a 2005 Chevrolet Silverado truck, in which border patrol agents found approximately 3.56 kilograms of methamphetamine. Flores-Acuna was convicted and sentenced under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952 and 960, and appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores-Acuna filed a motion for a new trial based on alleged newly-discovered evidence in the form of a post-trial psychological evaluation. “We review a district court’s order denying a motion for a new trial made on the ground of newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion.” *United States v. Hinkson,*585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). The district court correctly identified the standard for evaluating a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. *See United States v. Harrington,*410 F.3d 598, 601 (9th Cir.2005). After reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores-Acuna’s motion because nothing prevented defense counsel from re*669questing such an evaluation before trial, and the psychiatric evaluation was not evidence which would show that a new trial would probably result in acquittal.

We do not address Flores-Acuna’s appeal of his sentence, because, although he raised the issue in his opening brief, he did not offer any argument with respect to it. *See United States v. Alonso,*48 F.3d 1586, 1544-45 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6317

WILLIAM JOSEPH HUGHES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. H OWARD W. CLARKE, Director , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak , District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 00034

- DJN )

Submitted : August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. William Joseph Hughes , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Joseph Hughes seeks to appeal the d istrict court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue abse nt “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s a ssessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatab le and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
FFP Partners, L.P.
                               2801 Glenda Avenue
                                Fort Worth, Texas
                                   76117-4391



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE               November 12, 1997



            FFP Partners Announces Purchase of 104 Convenience Stores

     FFP Partners,  L.P.  (AMEX - "FFP"),  Fort Worth,  Texas,  announced it has
signed  an  agreement  to  purchase  104  convenience   stores  from  E-Z  Serve
Convenience  Stores,  Inc. The outlets  being  acquired are in eight states with
over 80% of them located in Texas.  The Company  expects to complete the closing
of the acquisition by year end.

     In announcing the acquisition,  John H. Harvison, Chairman of FFP Partners,
said, "We are pleased to have an opportunity to expand our convenience store and
retail  motor fuel  operations  with this  acquisition.  All of these stores are
located  in states  in which we  currently  operate  and many of the them are in
areas  where we  already  have a  presence.  Although  we will  add  some  field
supervisory  personnel to oversee these  outlets,  we believe we will be able to
handle the  purchasing  and accounting for these stores without adding any other
administrative  staff.  Since  these  outlets  are  currently  operating,   this
acquisition  will have an  immediate  positive  impact on our  earnings and cash
flow."

     FFP Partners is a publicly traded limited  partnership  that currently owns
and operates over 300 convenience stores, truck stops, and self-service gasoline
outlets in eleven central,  southern,  and southwestern states. The Company also
sells motor fuel on a wholesale  basis to other  retailers and to commercial end
users. Its Class A Units are listed on the American Stock Exchange.








      For further information, contact Steven B. Hawkins at 817.838.4767 or
                             investorinfo@ffplp.com
2

Table 8. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 25 to 64 years of age by educational

attainment and sex, 2006 annual averages 

(Numbers in thousands)

 Civilian labor force 

 Employed Unemployed 

 Total 

Percent

of

population

 Total

 Percent 

of labor 

force

Total

Total, 25 to 64 years........................... 156,259 123,550 79.1 119,062 76.2 4,489 3.6 32,708 

 Less than a high school diploma......... 18,802 11,999 63.8 11,165 59.4 835 7.0 6,803 

 High school graduates, no college1...... 47,730 36,511 76.5 34,908 73.1 1,603 4.4 11,220 

 Some college or associate degree...... 42,182 34,216 81.1 32,991 78.2 1,225 3.6 7,966 

 College graduates, total................... 47,544 40,825 85.9 39,999 84.1 826 2.0 6,719 

 Bachelor's degree........................... 31,367 26,712 85.2 26,105 83.2 607 2.3 4,654 

 Master's degree............................ 11,556 9,927 85.9 9,759 84.4 168 1.7 1,629 

 Professional degree........................ 2,567 2,315 90.2 2,288 89.1 27 1.1 252 

 Doctoral degree.............................. 2,054 1,870 91.0 1,846 89.9 24 1.3 184 

Women

Total, 25 to 64 years......................... 79,523 57,201 71.9 55,051 69.2 2,150 3.8 22,323 

 Less than a high school diploma......... 8,840 4,337 49.1 3,980 45.0 356 8.2 4,503 

 High school graduates, no college1...... 23,689 16,190 68.3 15,473 65.3 716 4.4 7,499 

 Some college or associate degree...... 22,830 17,301 75.8 16,631 72.8 670 3.9 5,529 

 College graduates, total..................... 24,165 19,373 80.2 18,966 78.5 407 2.1 4,792 

 Bachelor's degree......................... 16,195 12,791 79.0 12,487 77.1 304 2.4 3,405 

 Master's degree............................ 6,214 5,080 81.7 4,996 80.4 84 1.7 1,134 

 Professional degree........................ 1,025 873 85.1 860 83.8 14 1.5 152 

 Doctoral degree.............................. 730 629 86.2 624 85.5 6 .9 101 

Men

Total, 25 to 64 years........................... 76,735 66,350 86.5 64,011 83.4 2,339 3.5 10,386 

 Less than a high school diploma......... 9,962 7,662 76.9 7,184 72.1 478 6.2 2,300 

 High school graduates, no college1...... 24,042 20,321 84.5 19,434 80.8 887 4.4 3,720 

 Some college or associate degree...... 19,353 16,915 87.4 16,360 84.5 555 3.3 2,438 

 College graduates, total..................... 23,379 21,451 91.8 21,033 90.0 419 2.0 1,928 

 Bachelor's degree......................... 15,171 13,922 91.8 13,619 89.8 303 2.2 1,250 

 Master's degree.............................. 5,342 4,847 90.7 4,763 89.2 84 1.7 495 

 Professional degree...................... 1,542 1,442 93.5 1,429 92.7 13 .9 100 

 Doctoral degree.............................. 1,324 1,241 93.7 1,222 92.3 18 1.5 83 

1

 Includes persons with a high school diploma or equivalent.

 SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Educational attainment and sex

 Civilian 

noninstitutional

population

 Not in 

labor

 Total force

Percent

of

population

2
#### The American Eagle.1 The S. E. Babcock. Atlas Steam-Ship Co. *v.*The American Eagle and another.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

July 2, 1886.)

Collision — Tug and Tow and Steamer — Tug Close to Line of Piers— Steamer Moving Out—Inability of Tug to Avoid Steamer.

Where the tug A., with a tow astern, was coming down the North river, in the vicinity of Pier 1, and about 175 yards from the line of the piers, and saw another tug ahead moving a steamer out from along-side that pier, but was unable to avoid collision with her, it was *held*that a tug with a tow is bound, in this locality, to be under such control as to be able, by stopping, to avoid a steamer seen to be moving out from a pier half a mile ahead, and that the A. was consequently solely responsible for the collision.

In Admiralty.

*Wheeler & Cortis,*for the Atlas Steam-ship Co.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for the American Eagle.

*Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for the Babcock.

1

 Reported by R. D. *&*Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

The collision which gave rise to this action was, in my opinion, caused by the fault of the tug American Eagle, and not by apy fault on the part of the injured vessel, or on the part of the tug engaged in moving that vessel out from Pier 1, North river. The fault of the American Eagle was in coming down the river with two barges lashed side by side, upon a hawser about 250 feet in length, in such a condition of wind and tide, and at such speed, that she could not by stopping avoid an object ahead- and distant half a mile.

It is plain that if the tug had stopped when she saw the steamer moving out of the pier, no collision would have occurred. It was her duty, running by the pier as close as she was, to avoid a steamer so situated. A tug in this locality, undertaking to pass down the river with a tow astern, 175 yards off the pier, is bound to be under such control as will enable her to stop in time to avoid collision with a steamer seen to be moving out from along-sidé a pier. The necessity for such ability is made plain by the contention, on the part of the American Eagle, that she could not avoid the steamer by porting, *303jbccanse such a movement would have brought her in collision with vessels on the outside of her. Such a state of facts might easily occur, and in such a case stopping would be the only method of avoiding collision with a vessel ahead coming out from the piers. Ability to stop within a reasonable distance is therefore a necessity to navigation, under such circumstances as are proved in this case. I entertain great doubt as to the truth of the assertion that there was no room for the American Eagle to avoid the steamer by porting; hut, if she could not port, she was hound to stop. I find no fault on the part of the Babcock.

Let the libelant have a decree against the American Eagle, and let the libel be dismissed as against the Babcock.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ADE CORPORATION FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                          68,599
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,821
<PP&E>                                          25,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,082
<BONDS>                                          8,940
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           131
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,290
<SALES>                                         24,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,028
<CGS>                                           13,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (761)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (514)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (806)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (813)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Romeo A. MARQUIS, a/k/a Little Tony, a/k/a Tony Robinson, a/k/a Michael A. Blair, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-6722.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 27, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Romeo A. Marquis, Appellant Pro Se. Tara L. McGregor, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*304PER CURIAM:

Romeo A. Marquis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See United States v. Marquis,*No. 3:07-er-00666-JFA-l (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q for the quarterending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| DATE:  | May 10, 2006 | BY:    | **/**s/ SHELDON  HOFFMAN             | ** ** |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|------------|
|   |              |   | Sheldon Hoffman                      |
|   |              |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN R. SMITH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-15012

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01313-RCJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 13, 2014** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE,*** Senior District

Judge.

Plaintiff Kevin Smith appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment

to defendant United Parcel Services, Inc. (“UPS”). We review de novo and may

FILED

JAN 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Senior United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
affirm on any ground supported by the record. Petroliam Nasional Berhad v.

GoDaddy.com, Inc., 737 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 2013). Upon review, we affirm

for the reasons set forth below.

In Nevada, an employer has a general duty to use reasonable care to ensure

that an employee is properly trained and supervised in the performance of his or

her position. Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 984 P.2d 750, 751 (Nev. 1999); Hall

v. SSF, Inc., 930 P.2d 94, 99 (Nev. 1996). As to supervision, Smith's deposition

testimony shows that his supervisors at UPS took reasonable and proportionate

steps to address his complaints about other employees. As to training, UPS put

forward evidence that it promulgated anti-harassment policies to its employees and

trained its supervisors regarding harassment, and there is nothing in the record to

suggest that the training or policies were deficient. Even drawing all reasonable

inferences in Smith’s favor, the record will not support the conclusion that UPS

breached its duty of care. Summary judgment was proper because Smith failed to

raise a triable issue of fact. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

AFFIRMED.

2