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.

October 7, 2016

p1004 

# Order

Clerk October 7, 2016

153463 & (41)(42)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153463

COA: 324193

Oakland CC: 2013

- 248152

- FC

ADAM DONALD LUTZ,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to permit additional ground for appeal is

GRANTED. The application for leave to app eal the February 25, 2016 judgment of the

Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court to determine

whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under the

sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358 (2015). On

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If

the trial court determines that it would have imposed th e same sentence absent the

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If,

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discret ion, it shall resentence the defendant.

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to amend

and clarify the record is DENIED.
#### MEANS et al. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORP. et al.

No. 7525.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Sept. 24, 1952.

William G. Boatright, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Byron Spencer (of Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne), Kansas'City, Mo., for defendants Twentieth Century Fox, and Fox Midwest Theatres.

J. C. Wilson and Watson, Ess, Whittaker, Marshall & Enggas, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for Loews Inc., Paramount Film Distributing Corp., RKO Pictures-Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corp., United Artists Corp., Universal Film Exchanges, Inc. and Columbia Pictures Corp.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

Heretofore a ruling was made on the motion, D.C., 105 F.Supp. 482, to dismiss but it was premature. Counsel had obtained permission to file a responsive brief and the decision was rendered before the court received such response. Thereupon counsel for defendants filed a motion to set aside the order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and to give further consideration to said motion. This has been done save only that the order has not been set aside. Such an order would be proper in the event it appeared that the court was in error.

A re-examination of the pleadings and the new 'brief does not convince that the order overruling the motion to dismiss was error. The motion to dismiss raises the sole question of the illegality of the settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Rule 8(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., specifically provides that:

> “In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively * * *, illegality * * * and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”

Unquestionably the Committee, as well as the Court, and the Congress, in preparing, approving and legalizing the procedural rules deemed it improper to dismiss actions, such as this, on motion. While it has been done in some cases, yet the courts have very reluctantly upheld the filing of motions to dismiss in cases of this kind. The same reasons for the promulgation of the rule *199obtain when motions of this kind are submitted.

It may be, in the light of the evidence submitted, that the construction of the contract as made by mutual agreement of the parties would not bring it within the ban of illegality. Moreover, as stated in the memorandum heretofore filed, portions of the contract may be illegal and other portions legal.

All of these questions can be worked out and determined in the trial of the case. This ruling does not deprive the defendants of interposing the affirmative defense of illegality.

It would follow that the ruling heretofore made should not be disturbed and the defendants will be extended time, upon application, in which to answer or plead further. The motion to set aside order denying defendants’ motions to dismiss and for reconsideration of said motions will, therefore, be overruled.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANNIE M. KAPLAN

, Appellant,

v.

PALM TRAN, INC., A Florida Not For Profit C orporation, and PALM

BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 18

- 154

[ February 7, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Meenu Sasser , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502015CA011971XXXXMB

.

John J.R. Skrandel of Jerome F. Skrandel, PL, North Palm Beach, for

appellant.

David C. Behar and Rachel Fahey, Assistant County Attorneys, Palm

Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN , and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.2



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 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Paul Donovan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

/s/ Paul Donovan
Paul Donovan
Chief Financial Officer
February 28, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 08, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 08, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A1449. EULALIO ROBLES v. VENKATRANGA KONDA .

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On April 25, 2018, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than May 07, 2018. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published except under the limited circumstances set forth

in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-40054

Summary Calendar

_______________

JOVITA HERRERA VARELA,

as Administrator and Legal Representative

of the Estate of José Manuel Varela,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(M-94-CV-167)

_________________________

July 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiff appeals a summary judgment. The issue is

whether plaintiff can recover under the uninsured motorist coverage

applying to a vehicle not owned by plaintiff’s decedent. The

policy states that a person who is not a family member is covered

only while “occupying” the covered vehicle. “Occupying” means “in,
2

upon, getting in, on, out or off.”

We affirm on the basis of the able Memorandum and Order filed

by the district court on December 18, 1995. Viewing the summary

judgment record, the court stated, correctly, that 

[t]here is absolutely nothing to suggest that [the

decedent] was ever ‘occupying’ the trailer at any time.

There is no evidence that at the time of this unfortunate

accident, the decedent was either in or upon the trailer,

nor was he getting in, on, out or off of it. . . . [He]

had definitely concluded the process of getting off the

van and had already cleared the immediate risk of

alighting. He never began the process of getting on or

in the trailer. He therefore was not “occupying” either

vehicle . . . .

AFFIRMED.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                           	Washington, D.C.  20549

                                  	FORM 8-K

                               	CURRENT REPORT

                   	Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the
                       	Securities Exchange Act of 1934


      	Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): December 3, 1999


                               NORTHEAST BANCORP
             ______________________________________________________
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)


           Maine                         1-14588                 01-0425066
____________________________     ________________________     _________________
(State or Other Jurisdiction     (Commission File Number)     (IRS Employer
 Incorporation)                                                Identification
                                                               Number)

     232 Center Street, Auburn, Maine                          04210
__________________________________________                _______________
 (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                   (Zip Code)


Registrant's telephone number, including area code:    (207) 777-6411
                                                     __________________





Item 5.  Other Events.
         _____________

On December 3, 1999, the Board of Directors of Northeast Bancorp approved a
plan to repurchase up to $2,000,000 of its common stock, $1.00 par value per
share.  Under the common stock repurchase plan, Northeast Bancorp may purchase
shares of its common stock from time to time in the open market at prevailing
prices.  Repurchased shares will be held in treasury and may be used in
connection with employee benefits and other general corporate purposes.  The
press release describing the common stock repurchase plan is attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1.

Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.
         __________________________________

(a) 	Not Applicable

(b) 	Not Applicable

(c) 	Exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K

Exhibit No.               Description
___________               ___________
   99.1            Press Release, issued December 3, 1999, regarding the Stock
                   Repurchase Plan.





                                  	SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly  authorized.

                                                 NORTHEAST BANCORP
Date:   December 3, 1999
                                     By:         /s/ James D. Delamater
                                          _____________________________________
                                                   James D. Delamater
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer





EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.          Description
___________          ___________

   99.1          Press Release, issued December 3, 1999, regarding the Stock
                 Repurchase Plan.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Dick Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

May8, 2018

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,558
<SECURITIES>                                    12,157
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,717
<INVENTORY>                                     12,841
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,216
<PP&E>                                          27,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,272
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,569)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,572
<SALES>                                         79,444<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,444
<CGS>                                           50,075<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,865
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,116)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (658)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,458)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
<FN>
<F1>Includes revenues from licensing of software and support services.
<F2>Includes costs from licensing of software and support services.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 First Ipswich Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy L. Felter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.

      This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of
the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B)
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.


/s/ Timothy L. Felter
---------------------
Timothy L. Felter
Chief Financial Officer

November 2, 2007
Exhibit 10.18


PROMISSORY NOTE




$125,000.00
Executed at Broward County, FloridaJanuary 6, 2011





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Le@P Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 5601 N. Dixie Highway, Suite 411, Fort Lauderdale, Florida  33334 ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of the M. Lee Pearce Living Trust (the "Payee"), the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($125,000.00), together with interest at the “Prime Rate” (as hereinafter defined), as announced from time to time, due and payable in one lump sum of principal and interest on January 8, 2012.  “Prime Rate” shall mean the prime commercial lending rate set forth in the “Money Rates” section of The Wall Street Journal, as announced from time to time.  Principal and interest shall be payable to the Payee at the following address:  16 La Gorce Circle, Miami Beach, FL 33141, or such other place as the Payee may designate.





This Promissory Note (this "Note") is issued subject to the following additional terms and conditions:





1.             Type of Payment.  Payment of both principal and interest shall be made in currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.





2.             Manner of Payment.  Payment shall be made to Payee at the Payee's address set forth above or such other place as Payee may designate in writing.





3.             Interest on Overdue Payments.  From and after the date which is fifteen (15) days after the date upon which any payment of principal hereunder becomes due and payable, if the same is not timely paid, interest shall be payable on all sums outstanding hereunder at fifteen percent (15%) per annum.





4.             Miscellaneous.





(A)          This Note shall be binding upon the Maker and its successors and assigns.





(B)           If any provision hereof shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or as a result of future legislative action, such holding or action shall be strictly construed and shall not affect the validity or effect of any other provision hereof.





(C)           The validity, interpretation and effect of this Note shall be exclusively governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Florida, excluding the "conflict of laws" rules thereof.





(D)           This Note may not be amended or modified, nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective, except by an instrument in writing executed by the Maker and Payee.





(E)            In case suit shall be brought for the collection hereof, or if it is necessary to place the same in the hands of an attorney for collection, the Maker agrees to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for making such collections.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this Note to be executed as of the day and year first above written.





LE@P TECHNOLOGY, INC.By:
/s/ Timothy C. LincolnName:
Timothy C. LincolnActing Principal Executive Officer
Interim Decision #1638 

MaTry,..te OF LEGER 

Deportation Proceedings 

A-14689836 

Decided by Board August 25, 1966 

:Since adjustment of status pursuant to section 245, Immigration and Na-

. tionality Act, an amended, is discretionary in nature and since respondent 

has not established that his case merits the exercise of such discretion, 

there is no necessity to determine whether respondent, who is engaged in 

the fruit peddling business, is exempt from the presentation of a certification issued by the Secretary of Labor under section 212(a) (14) of the Act. 

-thIABGE : 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)]—Nonimmigrant, remained longer. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the special inquiry officer 

finding the respondent deportable as charged, denying the application for adjustment under section 245, and granting voluntary departure. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a 31-year-old married male, native of Tonga and 

citizen of Cheat Britain. He was admitted to the United. States at 

Honolulu, Hawaii, as a visitor for pleasure, on. May 31, 1965, with 

permission to remain wail November 30, 1965. On June 80, 1965, 

he submitted an application for adjustment to permanent resident 

status. His application was denied on October 18, 1965, and he 

was given until November 12, 1965, to depart. He remained beyond 

that time without authority and has conceded deportability on the 

charge contained in the order to show cause. 

At the deportation hearing, the respondent-renewed his application for section 245 adjustment. The respondent has no immediate 

familyin the United States, his wife and three children- being residents of Tonga. When respondent applied for his visitor's visa, he 

indicated that his purpose in coming to the United States was "Holi-

.day", but he has testified that his main parpoie in coming-to the 

796 
Interim Decision 401688 

"United States was to see if he could remain permaitently. Whatever 

investment respondent has made in the fruit peddling business (the 

material submitted on appeal does not indicate what portion was 

invested by respondent and what portion by his partner) was concededly made after the hearing, at which the special inquiry officer 

had rendered his oral decision denying the application. 

The granting of adjustment is discretionary, and is not automatic 

upon the establishment of eligibility. There must be outstanding 

equities, in a general meritorious case, to warrant it. (Cf. Matter of 

Ortiz Prieto, Int. Dec. No. 1508.) Respondent has not presented a 

picture that merits the favorable exercise of discretion in his behalf. 

There is therefore no • need to consider whether the character of the 

peddling business in which respondent has engaged meets the conditions required for the exemption of the respondent from the 

presentation of a labor certification. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

797