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

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

February 26, 2010 

0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

140183 & (18) 

TIMOTHY L. TRAMMEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140183 

 COA: 292912 

WCAC: 2008-000226 

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2009 order of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### **CHAPTER 41—EXPEDITED FUNDS AVAILABILITY**

Sec.
4001.
Definitions.
4002.
Expedited funds availability schedules.
4003.
Safeguard exceptions.
4004.
Disclosure of funds availability policies.
4005.
Payment of interest.
4006.
Miscellaneous provisions.
4007.
Effect on State law.
4008.
Regulations and reports by Board.
4009.
Administrative enforcement.
4010.
Civil liability.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

82-21 

July 27, 1982 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4203 Complete Withdrawal

4218(2) Withdrawal - Suspension of Contributions 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your inquiry concerning whether certain types of labor disputes involving an employer's employees

would constitute a withdrawal from a multiemployer plan in which the employer participates under the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980

("ERISA"). Your letter cites three types of labor disputes: a strike or a lockout as a result of a strike against another

employer; an "offensive" lockout by an employer after an impasse; and an illegal strike by the union with employees

being discharged or permanently replaced. 

Under ERISA the plan sponsor has the responsibility for determining whether any particular action constitutes a

withdrawal from a multiemployer plan and the amount by any liability arising therefrom. ERISA further provides that

any dispute between a plan sponsor and an employer on these issues is to be resolved first through arbitration and then,

if necessary, in the courts. Given this scheme for enforcement of ERISA, it would be inappropriate for the PBGC to give

its opinion on the application of the law [*2] to a particular transaction. The PBGC will, however, continue its practice

of issuing general interpretations of the law. 

Under ERISA section 4203(a) a complete withdrawal occurs when an employer: 

(1) permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the plan, or 

(2) permanently ceases all covered operations under the plan. [Emphasis added.] 

On the other hand, ERISA section 4218 provides in relevant part: 

Nothwithstanding any other provision of this part, an employer shall not be considered to have withdrawn from a

plan solely because -- 

 (2) an employer suspends contributions under the plan during a labor dispute involving the employees. 

Section 4203 and 4218 indicate that the cessation with respect to the plan must be permanent for a withdrawal to

occur. 

In explaining sections 4218, one of the sponsors of the Multiemployer Act pointed out -- 

". . . if the facts and circumstances of a particular situation indicate that co tributions have ceased permanently --

for example, all employees covered under the plan have been permanently replaced or the facility has been closed -- the

fact that the cessation of any contribution obligation was precipitated by [*3] a labor dispute does not mean that no

withdrawal has taken place." [126 Cong. Rec. H7898, Aug. 26, 1980; remarks of Rep. Thompson.] 

I hope that this letter is of assistance to you. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
EX-35.8
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

RBS Commercial Funding Inc.
600 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, Connecticut 06901

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
    Securities Inc. Commercial Mortgage Certificates Series 2012-C7

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2012 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
# C_2006280EN.01002402.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4321 — Siemens/Bayer Diagnostics)

(2006/C 280/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 31 October 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4321. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4321. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Linda DellaCamera *v.*Louis DellaCamera

The defendant’s motion for permission to file typewritten copies of his brief and appendix in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven *682County is granted provided the brief and appendix are clearly legible and comply with the other requirements of Practice Book §§ 723 and 724, as amended.

*Richard Cramer,*in support of the motion.

Submitted April 23

decided May 8, 1974
### [§§4145 to 4147. Omitted]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 4145 to 4147 were initially transferred from sections 2350l, 2368, and 2367 of this title, respectively, by Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1844(b), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4246, to become effective Jan. 1, 2022. Subsequently, Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(u)(5)(B), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2154, struck out and added a new section 1844(b) of Pub. L. 116–283, effective as if included therein. The new section 1844(b) did not direct any transfers to sections 4145 to 4147, thereby omitting these sections before they took effect. After other amendments by Pub. L. 117–81, section 2350l was not transferred, and sections 2368 and 2367 were transferred to sections 4124 and 4126 of this title, respectively.
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Rex Eugene Wilson, appellant.

225 N. W. 2d 37

Filed January 16, 1975.

No. 39593.

Leo M. Williams, for appellant.

*27Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Harold Mosher, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Clinton, J.

The defendant, aged 17, pled guilty to a charge' of burglary. As a part of a plea bargain another burglary charge against him was dismissed. He was sentenced to a term of 18 months to 3 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. The claim on appeal is that the sentence is excessive. We affirm.

Defendant acknowledged that he, either individually or with a companion, was guilty of a long series of burglaries in several towns in northeastern Nebraska, extending through most of the year 1973. In these burglaries thousands of dollars in money and property were damaged and taken. Some of these crimes occurred during a period when the defendant was still on probation for a burglary committed in 1971. The defendant was not apprehended on the present charge until after the period of that probation had expired. Pie had once earlier been on probation for a burglary committed at age 12.

He acknowledged fairly regular use of marijuana and that the use induced a lack of desire to work. Some of the proceeds of the burglaries were used for the purchase of marijuana. Pie had experimented with other drugs.

The court could conclude from the record, and apparently did, that in those burglaries in which he had a companion the defendant was the leader. The record creates doubt as to the desire or motivation of the defendant to change his ways.

We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence it did.

Affirmed.
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  HazMat Technical Resources 
                      -  Technical Reports 

## Related Links

                  -                                          DOT-3AL-6351 T6 Alloy Cylinder Rupture Evaluation Tests for Mechanical Strength...                   

## Related Documents

                  -                                          Rupture Evaluation Tests for Mechanical strength and Fracture Toughness for DOT-3AL-6351 T6 Alloy Cylinder PDF                   

# Rupture Evaluation Tests for Mechanical strength and Fracture Toughness for DOT-3AL-6351 T6 Alloy Cylinder

**June 1, 1994**

The main purpose of this technical evaluation was to determine the cause of an aluminum cylinder failure in North Miami Beach, FL.

**Key Words:** SLC, sustain load crack, SCUBA, DOT 3AL cylinder, fractographic, ruptured cylinder, SEM analysis, ruptured DOT-3AL

If you have any **technical questions** not addressed by this or associated documents, contact Mark Toughiry, 202-366-4545.

[NOTE: The attached documents are in PDF format, you can download a free viewer.  If you have problems accessing the PDFs or the information, report your problem for further assistance.]
# C_2006332EN.01000101.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 332/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 December 2006

(2006/C 332/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3170 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4560 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67150 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0404 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6069 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,13 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2380 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5782 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,485 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,77 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6972 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8310 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3835 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,64 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,435 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8640 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6691 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5281 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2409 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8725 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0202 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 224,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2124 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2793 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3504 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 844,44 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6490 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,546 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,770 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3170

JPY

Japanese yen

156,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4560

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67150

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0404

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6069

ISK

Iceland króna

93,13

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2380

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5782

CZK

Czech koruna

27,485

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,77

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6972

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8310

RON

Romanian leu

3,3835

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,64

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,435

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8640

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6691

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5281

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2409

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8725

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0202

KRW

South Korean won

1 224,81

ZAR

South African rand

9,2124

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2793

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3504

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 844,44

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6490

PHP

Philippine peso

64,546

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6800

THB

Thai baht

46,770

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### § 100.57 [Reserved]
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00090

- CV

NIKKI NORVELL APPELLANT

V.

BRYAN BRUTON AND THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORN EY GENERAL APPELLEES

----------
FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Nikki Norvell attempts to appeal from the trial court’s February 7,
2012 order granting bill of review in favor of Bryan Bruton. In a letter dated
April 20 , 201 2 , we notified Appellant of our concern that we might not have
jurisdiction over this appeal because the order s he was attempting to appeal from
did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 30 , 201 2
, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response in which she agreed that this cou rt does
not have jurisdiction.
The general rule, with a few exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken
only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har

– Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195
(Tex. 2001). An order granting a bill of review that s ets aside a prior judgment

without also d ispos ing of all issues in the case on the merits is interlocutory in
nature and is not a final judgment appealable to the court of appeals or to the
Texas Supreme Court. Kiefer v. Touris , 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006);

Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith , 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990). Because the trial

court ’ s February 7, 2012 order does not dispose of all issues and parties in the
case, it is not an appealable interlocutory order. Kiefer , 197 S.W.3d at 302;

Tesoro , 79 6 S.W.2d at 705. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 24 , 2012
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.194 Does FTCA coverage extend to services provided under a staff privileges agreement with a non-IHS facility where the agreement requires a health care practitioner to provide reciprocal services to the general population? Yes. Those services are covered, as long as the contractor's health care practitioners do not receive additional compensation from a third party for the performance of these services and they are acting within the scope of their employment under a self-determination contract. Reciprocal services include: ( a ) Cross-covering other medical personnel who temporarily cannot attend their patients;
( b ) Assisting other personnel with surgeries or other medical procedures;
( c ) Assisting with unstable patients or at deliveries; or
( d ) Assisting in any patient care situation where additional assistance by health care personnel is needed.
# C_2007069EN.01000602.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/6

---

Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-9/07)

(2007/C 69/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

1

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2002/74/EC expired on 8 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.

1

---
§ 81.22 How is the Secretarial election conducted? The Secretarial Election Board: ( a ) Uses the list provided in the tribal request as the basis for the Eligible Voters List;
( b ) Assembles and mails the Secretarial Election Notice Packet at least 30 days, but no more than 60 days, before the date of the Secretarial election to all persons on the Eligible Voters List;
( c ) Confirms that registration forms were received on or before the deadline date;
( d ) Retains the completed registration form as part of the record;
( e ) Develops the Registered Voters List for posting;
( f ) Where the election is conducted entirely by mailout ballot, notes on a copy of the Registered Voters List, by the individual's name, the date the ballot was mailed, and the date the ballot was returned; and
( g ) Where polling sites are required and an individual requests an absentee ballot, notes on a copy of the Registered Voters List, by the individual's name, the date his or her absentee ballot request was received, the date the absentee ballot was mailed, and the date the absentee ballot was returned.
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Related Documents

                  -                                          PD-22R Decision                   

## Contact Us

Office of Governmental, International, and Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.publicaffairs@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4831****Fax:**202-366-7431**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# PD-22(R): New Mexico statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to transporters of liquefied petroleum gas
§ 37.71 Driver's licenses and identification cards issued under section 202(d)(11) of the REAL ID Act. ( a ) Except as authorized in § 37.27, States that DHS determines are compliant with the REAL ID Act that choose to also issue driver's licenses and identification cards that are not acceptable by Federal agencies for official purposes must ensure that such driver's licenses and identification cards— ( 1 ) Clearly state on their face and in the machine readable zone that the card is not acceptable for official purposes; and
( 2 ) Have a unique design or color indicator that clearly distinguishes them from driver's licenses and identification cards that meet the standards of this part.
( b ) DHS reserves the right to approve such designations, as necessary, during certification of compliance.