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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

March 5, 2012 

143934-9 

PATRICK MCCARTHY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143934-6 

 COA: 293482; 294385; 295784 

Oakland CC: 2008-089426-NO 

EDWARD SOSNICK, WENDY L. POTTS, 

KEVIN M. OEFFNER, RICHARD M. LYNCH, 

OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

JEANNE STEMPIEN, KATHLEEN J. 

MCCANN, THOMAS J. RYAN, BARRY M. 

GRANT, MICHAEL J. TALBOT, DIANE M. 

GARRISON, NANCY J. DIEHL, RONALD F. 

ROSE, NANCY J. GRANT, and JUDICIAL 

TENURE COMMISSION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

PATRICK MCCARTHY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143937-9 

 COA: 293483; 294383; 295782 

Oakland CC: 2009-094425-NO 

EDWARD SOSNICK, WENDY L. POTTS, 

KEVIN M. OEFFNER, RICHARD M. LYNCH, 

OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

JEANNE STEMPIEN, KATHLEEN J. 

MCCANN, THOMAS J. RYAN, BARRY M. 

GRANT, MICHAEL J. TALBOT, DIANE M. 

GARRISON, NANCY J. DIEHL, RONALD F. 

ROSE, NANCY J. GRANT, JUDICIAL TENURE 

COMMISSION, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, 

and ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 
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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

d0227 

 

2

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. We further 

conclude that the application for leave to appeal is frivolous and vexatious. MCR 

7.316(D). Plaintiff Patrick McCarthy is ordered to pay the Clerk of this Court $500 

within 28 days of the date of this order. We direct the Clerk of this Court not to accept 

any further filings from Mr. McCarthy in any non-criminal matter until he has made the 

payment required by this order.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7031
CHARLES ROBIN WOODS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EUGENE M. NUTH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA95-3089-CCB) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 10, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robin Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Woods v. Nuth , No. CA-95-3089-CCB (D. Md. July 11, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10678-10679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3912]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-36-000]


Coral Power, L.L.C., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Arizona Public 
Service Company, Cargill-Alliant, LLC, San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company, Avista Energy, Inc., Sempra Energy Trading Corp., PacifiCorp, 
Constellation Power Source, Complainants, v. California Power Exchange 
Corporation, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

February 12, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 8, 2001, Coral Power, L.L.C., Enron 
Power Marketing, Inc., Arizona Public Service Company, Cargill-Alliant, 
LLC, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Avista Energy, Inc., L.L.C., 
Sempra Energy Trading Corp. PacifiCorp, and Constellation Power Source 
(Complainants) filed a complaint and request for expedited relief under 
Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e (1994), and 
Section 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 
385.206, seeking a determination that attempts being

[[Page 10679]]

made by the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX) to chargeback 
to sellers into the CalPX market pursuant to Section 5.3 of Schedule 2 
of the CalPX Tariff for defaults of Southern California Edison Company 
(SCE) and other defaulting parties are unauthorized by the CalPX Tariff 
and are unjust and unreasonable under current circumstances in 
California.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before February 28, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the 
complaint shall also be due on or before February 28, 2001.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3912 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-U
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd. at March 31, 2000, and its statement of income
for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd.  for the three  months ended March 31,
2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         718,517
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                   223,053
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         19,231,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,251,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,615,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,598,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  20,615,925
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              594,615
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 216,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              13,955
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               430,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            430,730
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   430,730
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>  Due to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund IV,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>



</TABLE>
**Exhibit23.1**

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-11465 of Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reportdated February 22, 2002, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofSteinway Musical Instruments, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.

 

 
| /s/  DELOITTE  & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |
| Boston, Massachusetts                |
| March 28, 2002                       |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, 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.

September 12, 2018

p0905 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2018

155793 & (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155793

COA: 336586

Wayne CC: 12

- 011224

- FC

JAMARR DARRELL MILNER

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2017 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). The

motion to remand for resentencing is DENIED.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED AUGUST 29, 1997 AND
AUGUST 28, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-29-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1998 
<CASH>                                           9,259 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,497 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,533 
<INVENTORY>                                    114,684 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,182 
<PP&E>                                         521,505 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 267,791 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,582 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,069 
<BONDS>                                        244,575 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           127 
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,917 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   463,582 
<SALES>                                      1,056,103 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,056,103 
<CGS>                                          879,263 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  969,526 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,859 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,532 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,280 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,438 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,125 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,313 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,313 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.62 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.58 
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo PENALOZA-CARLON, aka Eduarto Carlon Penaloza, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-10150.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 7, 2014.

Erica Leigh Seger, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Edith Cunningham, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Benjamin Daniel Sing-erman, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ROBART, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable James L. Robart, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the West-em District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Eduardo Penaloza-Carlon appeals from his sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing on a closed record.

The district court did not err in rejecting an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. The court correctly noted that Penaloza-Carlon’s refusal to plead guilty “doesn’t preclude the Court from considering a reduction,” and the court’s conclusion that Penaloza-Carlon has not accepted responsibility is entitled to deference on appeal. *See United States v. Scrivener,*189 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir.1999).

However, the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement under *510U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b).1 At the time of sentencing, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in *United States v. Caceres-Olla,*738 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.2013). Under *Caceres-Olla,*Penaloza-Carlon’s predicate Oregon conviction for rape in the third degree is not categorically a forcible sex offense, because the relevant Oregon statute, O.R.S. § 163.355, criminalizes sexual conduct based entirely on age. *See Caceres-Olla,*738 F.3d at 1054-56. Further, Penaloza-Carlon’s predicate conviction does not constitute “statutory rape” under the applicable Guideline, because the Oregon statute “does not have an age difference element.” *Id.*at 1057. And the government has waived any argument that the conviction constitutes sexual abuse of a minor. *Id.*at 1054 n. 1.

In view of this disposition, we need not reach the remaining issues argued by the parties. Because Penaloza-Carlon has been incarcerated for a longer period of time than the Guidelines would have provided absent the improper enhancement, we respectfully urge the district court to resentence Penaloza-Carlon expeditiously. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. As the parties agree, the judgment incorrectly indicates that Penaloza-Carlon’s sentence was enhanced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), rather than under § 1326(b)(1).
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00594

- CV

In Re B.L.B, P.M.B., & C.K.B., minor children

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court of Hays County , Texas Trial Cause No. 07

- 0225

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed in part and the
cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court
REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Co sts of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 22, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4067]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-1208-000]


Duke Energy Moapa, LLC; Notice of Filing

February 13, 2001.
    Take notice that on February 8, 2001, Duke Energy Moapa, LLC (Duke 
Moapa), tendered for filing pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal 
Power Act its proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Duke Moapa seeks authority to sell energy and capacity, as well as 
ancillary services, at market-based rates, together with certain 
waivers and preapprovals. Duke Moapa also seeks authority to sell, 
assign, or transfer transmission rights that it may acquire in the 
course of its marketing activities.
    Duke Moapa seeks and effective date sixty (60) days from the date 
of filing for its proposed rate schedules.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before March 1, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4067 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMA-WAVE,
INC.'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                          55,027
<SECURITIES>                                     9,482
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                       573
<INVENTORY>                                     39,781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,994
<PP&E>                                           6,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,112
<BONDS>                                             16
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           238
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,564
<SALES>                                         91,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,849
<CGS>                                           45,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74


</TABLE>