alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127803 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127803 

 COA: 257721 

Kent CC: 00-000085-FC 

ANTHONY DUANE ROPER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 24, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

s1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 31, 2005 

Clerk
#### Robert Aldrich vs. Commonwealth.

February 14, 2006.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Appeal from order of single justice.

*1002
      *Robert Aldrich,*pro se.

Robert Aldrich appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm.

Aldrich was charged with various criminal offenses in the District Court. Following several continuances, Aldrich moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming a violation of his right to a speedy trial. Before the motion was ruled on, Aldrich was indicted for the same offenses and the Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi in the District Court. Aldrich moved to dismiss the indictments, claiming that when the charges were pending in the District Court, the prosecutor had violated G. L. c. 276, § 35, and Aldrich’s speedy trial rights, and that the prosecutor had breached a promise not to proceed by indictment. A judge in the Superior Court denied the motion. Aldrich unsuccessfully sought relief from that order pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. Thereafter, trial took place in the Superior Court and Aldrich was found guilty of most of the charges. Aldrich filed a timely notice of appeal; his appeal has yet to be entered in the Appeals Court.

The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Because Aldrich can challenge the Superior Court judge’s denial of his motion to dismiss in his direct appeal from his convictions, he has not shown, as required by rule 2:21, that review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal. See, e.g., *Commonwealth*v. *Spaulding,*411 Mass. 503 (1992) (ordering dismissal of indictments on speedy trial ground on postconviction appeal). Review of speedy trial claims is not available as a matter of right interlocutorily pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. See *Cousin*v. *Commonwealth,*442 Mass. 1046 (2004); *Esteves*v. *Commonwealth,*434 Mass. 1003 (2001).

To the extent that Aldrich suggests he lacks an adequate alternative remedy because there was no final judgment in the District Court from which he could appeal (because the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi), his claim is misplaced. In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition he challenged the Superior Court judge’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictments on the ground that the prosecutor had failed to try the case in a timely manner in the District Court. That the District Court charges were the subject of a nolle prosequi did not prevent Aldrich from raising his speedy trial claims, as he did, in his motion to dismiss the Superior Court indictments. The Superior Court judge fully addressed that claim on the merits. While the Superior Court judge ultimately denied Aldrich’s motion, Aldrich can, as explained above, challenge that ruling on direct appeal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.
12/09/2020Case Number: OP 20-0410 FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 20-0410 MIGUEL GARDIPEE, Petitioner, v. JAMES SALMONSEN, Acting Warden, Respondent. FILED DEC 0 9 2020 BowenGreenwood Clerk of SupremeCoult StateofMontana ORDER

Bowen Greenwood CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA Petitioner Miguel Gardipee movesthis Court for appointment
of counsel and provides

a proposed order. In August 2020, Gardipee petitioned this Court for habeas corpusrelief alleging illegal incarceration because of a2014 sentence. Gardipee

is not entitled to representation
of counsel in his original proceeding. There is no right tothe appointrnent
of counsel in a proceeding for postconviction relief, although

acourt mayorder the assignment of counsel under the specific criteria outlined in § 46-8-104(1), MCA. Gardipee has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances to justify such appointment here. Section 46-8-104(1)(e), MCA. Even though his caseis still pending before this Court, Gardipee does not need to do anymoreorsubmit anyother argurnents. The State of Montana
is due tofile awritten responsethis rnonth. After this Court receives the response,

it will issue
adecision
in due course. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Gardipee's Motion for Appointment
of Counsel
is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide

a copyof this Order to counsel of record and to Miguel Gardipee personally. DATED this day of December, 2020. For the Court, Chief Justice12/09/2020Case Number: OP 20-0410
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.3


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use of our report dated March 25, 1998, included in this 
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Community First Bankshares, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the following 
Registration Statements and related Prospectuses of Community First 
Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March 25, 1998, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements of Western Bancshares of Las Cruces, Inc. 
as of and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1997, 
included in this Form 10-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Registration 
    Form      Statement No.        Purpose
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>          <C>              <C>
     S-8         33-44921     1987 Stock Option Plan
     S-8         33-48160     401(k) Retirement Plan
     S-8        333-52071     1996 Stock Option Plan and 401(k) Plan  
     S-3        333-37527     Registration of $150,000,000 of Common Stock, 
                              Preferred Stock and Debt Securities
     S-4        333-40071     Shelf registration of 4,438,207 shares of Common 
                              Stock
     S-4        333-49367     Shelf registration of 7,000,000 shares of Common 
                              Stock
</TABLE>

                              /s/ STARR COLTON PENA VOGEL & CO.

El Paso, Texas
March 22, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         701,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,814,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    890,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,794,195
<PP&E>                                         636,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,908,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,609,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    939,950
<COMMON>                                    40,125,006
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,226,752
<SALES>                                      3,455,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,455,135
<CGS>                                          871,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  871,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,246,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                302,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            302,838
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   302,838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of 315 Berry Street Corporation, Appellant, v Hanson Fine Arts et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 17, 2007;

decided February 12, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Divi*743sion where the appeal to the Appellate Division was from an order entered in an appeal from another court *(see*NY Const, art VI, §3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]).
#### The William Cox. *

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

September 12, 1881.

1. Appeal — Costs.

Where both parties appeal, and the decree of the ¿ower court is affirmed, neither party recovers costs of the appellate court. ’

*Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs,*for libellant.

*E. D. McCarthy,*for claimants.

*

See 3 Fed. Rep. 645.

Blatchford, C. J.

In this; case I entirely concur in the views of the district judge, and his conclusion, in his decision in the court below, based upon the rule laid down by that court in the case of *The William Murtaugh,*3 Fed. Rep. 404, which rule is a proper one for the protection of property and life. There must be a decree for the libellant for $733.05, with interest from January 28, 1881, and for his costs in the district court, taxed at $265.85. As both parties appealed to this court, and the decree below is not disturbed, neither party is to recover costs of this court.
<Page>

                                                                    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 on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Enrico
Cavatorta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), 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.


                                                   By: /s/ Enrico Cavatorta
                                                       --------------------
                                                       Enrico Cavatorta,
                                                       Chief Financial Officer

Dated: June 27, 2003


This written statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000539 30-APR-2019 07:57 AM
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40054 Summary Calendar

ISAAC FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman, Board of Pardons and Parole; GERALD GARRETT, Board Member; BRENDOLYN ROGERS GARDNER, Board Member; W. G. “BILLY” WALKER, Board Member, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-83

- - - - - - - - - - October 1, 2001 Before JOLLY, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Isaac Franklin, Texas prisoner #557634, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit with prejudice and the district court’s denial of his postjudgment motion seeking withdrawal of the court’s collection order regarding the filing fee for Franklin’s lawsuit. As an initial matter, however, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). F ED R. A PP . P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) providesNo. 01-40054 -2- that, if a timely motion is made pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 59(e), a notice of appeal filed after entry of the judgment, but before disposition of the motion, is ineffective until the entry of the order disposing of the motion. With the exception of a motion requesting correction of a clerical error, all postjudgment motions that call into question the correctness of the judgment and which are filed within 10 days of the judgment's entry are treated as Rule 59(e) motions, regardless the label applied to the motion. See Mangieri v. Clifton , 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals,
Inc. , 784 F.2d 665, 668-69 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc). Within 10 days after entry of the district court’s final judgment, Franklin filed a request for modification of the district court’s dismissal. Such request should be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion because it was filed within ten days of entry of the judgment, and it called into question the correctness of the judgment. Because the district court has not ruled on such motion, Franklin’s notice of appeal is not yet effective. See
F ED R. A PP . P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). The case is REMANDED and the clerk of this court is ordered to return the record to the district court for it to rule on the Rule 59(e) motion as expeditiously as possible. See Burt v.
Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). Should the district court deny the motion, Franklin’s notice of appeal will become effective.
REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001015298
<NAME>                        ALYN CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         1,225
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  750
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (129)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,539
<PP&E>                                         23,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5829)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,059
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,555
<COMMON>                                       243
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,317
<SALES>                                        459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459
<CGS>                                          3,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,072)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (1,793)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,793)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,794)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.17)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (125)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,658
<PP&E>                                           3,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (173)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,753
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,494
<COMMON>                                        33,036
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,933)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,234
<SALES>                                          9,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,933
<CGS>                                            3,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

                     SHATSWELL, MACLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                        CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                               83 PINE STREET
                   WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635
                          TELEPHONE (978) 535-0206
                          FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Slade's Ferry Bancorp of our report dated January 11, 2002.


                                       /s/ SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                                           SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 6, 2002
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2460 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to allow operation of foreign-flag 

cruise ships in the coastwise trade of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2011 

Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to allow operation 

of foreign-flag cruise ships in the coastwise trade of 

the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Creating and Restoring 

5 U.S. Investment and Stimulating Employment Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2460 IH

1 SEC. 2. OPERATION OF FOREIGN-FLAG CRUISE SHIPS IN 

2 THE COASTWISE TRADE OF THE UNITED 

3 STATES. 

4 Section 55103 of title 46, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—This section shall not apply 

9 to the transportation of passengers by a passenger 

10 vessel on a voyage— 

11 ‘‘(A) that is more than 24 hours in dura12 tion; 

13 ‘‘(B) any part of which is on the high seas; 

14 and 

15 ‘‘(C) in which passengers embark or dis16 embark in the United States (including any 

17 commonwealth or territory of the United 

18 States). 

19 ‘‘(2) PASSENGER VESSEL DEFINED.—For pur20 poses of this subsection ‘passenger vessel’ (as de21 fined in section 2101) does not include— 

22 ‘‘(A) a public vessel; 

23 ‘‘(B) a vessel owned or operated by a State 

24 or local government; or 

25 ‘‘(C) a vessel that is used on a regular 

26 schedule— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2460 IH

1 ‘‘(i) to provide transportation only be2 tween particular places; and 

3 ‘‘(ii) to transport only— 

4 ‘‘(I) passengers; or 

5 ‘‘(II) vehicles, or railroad cars, 

6 that are being used, or have been 

7 used, in transporting passengers or 

8 goods.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         179,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  368,848
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,610
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               615,557
<PP&E>                                       5,453,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                 421,484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,197,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,758,299
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         49
<COMMON>                                         1,603
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,153,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,197,277
<SALES>                                      2,777,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,777,575
<CGS>                                        2,605,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,148,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             192,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,492,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,492,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,492,767)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)


</TABLE>