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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 14, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh 133317 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133317 COA: 273193 Genesee CC: 05-015500-FC THURMAN JONES, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARKMAN , J., dissents and states as follow:

Defendant indicated that he wished to speak to a police officer. When asked whether he understood that he had a right to an attorney, defendant responded, “Yes . . . can I have one now while we talk?” The o fficer then explained th at defendant could either waive his right to an attorney and talk to the officer now or wait to talk to an attorney. Defendant then stated that he wished to waive his right to an attorney, signed a form waiving his right to an attorney, and spoke with th e officer. Because defendant clearly indicated that he wished to waive his right to an attorney, defendant’s statements to the officer should not have been suppressed. Therefo re, I dissent from this Court’s order denying leave to appea l; instead, I would reverse the j udgment of the trial court.

T AYLOR , C.J., joins the statement of M ARKMAN , J.

d0911 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 14, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
        <S> <C>
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30, 2000 BALANCE SHEET
AND THE TWELVE MONTH STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 FOR THE VERMONT TEDDY BEAR CO., INC.
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<S>	                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>	                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>	                  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>	                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                8,737,397
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            90,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>	                          3,619,836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     13,213,917
<PP&E>                               12,958,581
<DEPRECIATION>                        4,765,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       22,347,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 4,611,097
<BONDS>                               5,543,239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                           1,188,000
<COMMON>                                339,037
<OTHER-SE>                           10,225,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         22,347,845
<SALES>                              33,332,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     33,332,473
<CGS>                                12,316,569
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        12,316,569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     16,703,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      347,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       3,965,175
<INCOME-TAX>                            125,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   3,677,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>	3,677,683
<EPS-BASIC>	0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>	0.44


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7124
TERRY LYNN HAINES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, INDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-331-AM) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 26, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Lynn Haines, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Haines v. Warden, Indian Creek Correctional Ctr. , No. CA-97-331-AM (E.D. Va. July 10, 1997). Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 111.7 General Counsel's recommendation on complaint-generated matters (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(1). ( a ) Following either the expiration of the fifteen (15) day period specified by 11 CFR 111.6(a) or the receipt of a response as specified by 11 CFR 111.6(a), whichever occurs first, the General Counsel may recommend to the Commission whether or not it should find reason to believe that a respondent has committed or is about to commit a violation of statutes or regulations over which the Commission has jurisdiction.
( b ) The General Counsel may recommend that the Commission find that there is no reason to believe that a violation has been committed or is about to be committed, or that the Commission otherwise dismiss a complaint without regard to the provisions of 11 CFR 111.6(a).
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 166P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 604

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 June 1990.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4500]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 
3, 2011 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
March 3, 2011 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4500 Filed 2-24-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
§ 145.11 Supervision. ( a ) The Official State Agency may designate qualified persons as Authorized Agents to do the sample collecting provided for in § 145.14 and may designate qualified persons as Authorized Testing Agents to do the sample collecting and blood testing provided for in § 145.14.
( b ) The Official State Agency shall employ or authorize qualified persons as State Inspectors to perform the qualification testing of participating flocks, and to perform the official inspections necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of the Plan.
( c ) Authorities issued under the provisions of this section shall be subject to cancellation by the official State agency on the grounds of incompetence or failure to comply with the provisions of the Plan or regulations of the official State agency. Such actions shall not be taken until a thorough investigation has been made by the official State agency and the authorized person has been given notice of the proposed action and the basis therefor and an opportunity to present his views.
[36 FR 23112, Dec. 3, 1971, as amended at 38 FR 13706, May 24, 1973; 41 FR 48723, Nov. 5, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 61586, Oct. 26, 1979, as amended at 72 FR 1418, Jan. 12, 2007]
-  Home 
-  107 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 107.709

## Section §107.709: Processing of an application for approval, including an application for renewal or modification

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 107.709 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 26, 2012

No. 04-12-00763-CV

RAJASEKHAR BORRA M.D. AND INPATIENT CONSULTANTS OF TEXAS P.L.L.C.,

Appellants

v.

Rachael HERNANDEZ, Individually and on behalf of The Estate of Ricardo Hernandez Jr.

Deceased, Ricardo Hernandez III, Tanya A. Hernandez, Roxanne H. Hernandez, Katherine A.

Young and Rachael Lee Hernandez,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-01562

John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The District Clerk’s Notification of Late Record is GRANTED IN PART to November

29, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (2012 amendment provides each extension of time to file a

record in an accelerated appeal must not exceed 10 days).

____________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of November, 2012.

 ____________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

FILE COPY
VOL. _____ PAGE _______

MINUTES

Court of Appeals

Fourth Court of Appeals District

San Antonio, Texas

November 26, 2012

No. 04-12-00763-CV

RAJASEKHAR BORRA M.D. AND INPATIENT CONSULTANTS OF TEXAS P.L.L.C.,

Appellants

v.

Rachael HERNANDEZ, Individually and on behalf of The Estate of Ricardo Hernandez Jr.

Deceased, Ricardo Hernandez III, Tanya A. Hernandez, Roxanne H. Hernandez, Katherine A.

Young and Rachael Lee Hernandez,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-01562

John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The District Clerk’s Notification of Late Record is GRANTED IN PART to November

29, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (2012 amendment provides each extension of time to file a

record in an accelerated appeal must not exceed 10 days).

/S/ Catherine Stone

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of November, 2012.

 /s/ Keith E. Hottle

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

ENTERED THIS 26TH DAY OF November, 2012.

FILE COPY
#### Andrea M. Fuller et al., Respondents, v Pino Restaurant, Inc., Doing Business as Billy Bob’s, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[823 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered November 15, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendants’ motions to bifurcate the trial.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Scudder, Gorski and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and statements of cash
flows included in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
and notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,577
<SECURITIES>                                     3,080
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,225
<PP&E>                                          48,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,735)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,556
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       291,328
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,734
<SALES>                                         12,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,257
<CGS>                                            2,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,763)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,763)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.60)


</TABLE>
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 
-  Rulemaking 

# 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 

# Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda - September 22, 2021 - revised

September 22 MEETING AGENDA V.1.2.docx (60.72 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 84 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 84

  Recognizing the positive steps and achievements of the Republic of 
India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to foster peaceful relations 
                        between the two nations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 1999

 Mr. Gilman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the positive steps and achievements of the Republic of 
India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to foster peaceful relations 
                        between the two nations.

Whereas on February 22, 1999, the Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister 
        of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan signed the ``Lahore Declaration'' to 
        develop and secure a durable peace and to develop harmonious relations 
        and friendly cooperation between their two nations;
Whereas the Lahore Declaration states and affirms the commitment of the Republic 
        of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the objective of 
        universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation;
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have 
        reaffirmed their commitment to continue to abide by their respective 
        unilateral moratorium on conducting further nuclear test explosions;
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have agreed 
        to take immediate steps to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized 
        use of nuclear weapons;
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have agreed 
        to commence bilateral consultations on security, disarmament and non-
        proliferation issues within the context of negotiations on these issues 
        in multilateral form; and
Whereas the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have 
        reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and 
        manifestations and their determination to combat this menace: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the significance and importance of the 
        Lahore Declaration as a step toward durable peace and the 
        development of harmonious relations and friendly cooperation 
        between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of 
        Pakistan; and
            (2) supports the commitment of the Republic of India and 
        the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to universal nuclear 
        disarmament, non-proliferation, and peaceful regional 
        relations.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007056EN.01004402.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/44

---

Action brought on 21 January 2007 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-5/07)

(2007/C 56/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Belgium) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Appointing Authority's decision to appoint the applicant's superior to his current post; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Appointing Authority's decision to appoint the applicant's superior to his current post;

| — | annul the result, so far as it concerns the applicant, of competition CC/LA/1/99 and all connected and/or subsequent decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the result, so far as it concerns the applicant, of competition CC/LA/1/99 and all connected and/or subsequent decisions;

| — | annul the decision of the polling office of the Court Auditors to reject the applicant's challenge to the ballot of 2, 3, and 4 May 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the polling office of the Court Auditors to reject the applicant's challenge to the ballot of 2, 3, and 4 May 2006;

| — | annul the result of the Court Auditors' Staff Committee elections of 2, 3 and 4 May 2006 and all connected and subsequent decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the result of the Court Auditors' Staff Committee elections of 2, 3 and 4 May 2006 and all connected and subsequent decisions;

| — | annul the decisions not to promote the applicant, and to promote Mr X, in 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions not to promote the applicant, and to promote Mr X, in 2006;

| — | order the payment of compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant argues, inter alia, that: (i) the Appointing Authority's decisions were vitiated by a failure to give relevant reasons; (ii) the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors acted unlawfully in his capacity as Appointing Authority when he rejected the applicant's complaints, inasmuch as he had a personal interest such as to impair his independence; (iii) the Appointing Authority has performed its duties unlawfully since 1984; (iv) the applicant's superior performed his duties unlawfully; in breach inter alia of Article 7 and Article 11a (ex Article 14) of the Staff Regulations; (v) competition CC/LA/1/99 was prejudiced by a number of illegalities, for which there is new evidence; (vi) the 2006 Staff Committee elections are unlawful on a number of grounds; (vii) the promotion of Mr X stems from the interest of the applicant's hierarchical superior in obstructing the applicant's career.

---