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

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132755 & (63)(67) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. TIMOTHY RUMFIELD, Personal Representative Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of Daniel Rumfield, Deceased, and Justices Conservator/Co-Guardian of Jeffrey Rumfield, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132755 COA: 260540 Eaton CC: 02-001290-NI MATTHEW HENNEY, Defendant/Cross-Defendant,

and

BRIAN HENNEY, Defendant,

and

KELLY FUELS, INC., d/b/a WOODLAND EXPRESS MART, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 26, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered, and they are DENI ED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.

t1114 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.

November 21, 2007

Clerk
Limited Power of Attorney - Securities Law Compliance


The undersigned, as a director of Solectron Corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Philip Fok,
Michael Grady, or Victoria Miranda the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent to complete and execute such Forms 3, 4
and 5 and other forms as such attorney-in-fact shall, in his or her
discretion, determine to be required or advisable pursuant to Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or any successor laws and
regulations, as a consequence of the undersigned's ownership,
acquisition or disposition of securities of the Corporation, and to
do all acts necessary in order to file such forms with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange or national
association, the Corporation and such other person or agency as the
attorney-in-fact shall deem appropriate. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


This Limited Power of Attorney is executed at San Jose, California,
as of the date set forth below.



			Signature:	S/ Kenneth E. Haughton

			Type or Print Name:	Kenneth E. Haughton

			Dated: 	March 12, 2003






Witness:

Signature:	S/ Nitaya Yamamoto


Type or Print Name:	Nitaya Yamamoto


Dated: March 12, 2003
### §1269. Regulations

#### (a) Authority

The authority to promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this section, is vested in the Commission.

#### (b) Joint regulations

The Secretary of the Treasury and the Commission shall jointly prescribe regulations for the efficient enforcement of the provisions of section 1273 of this title, except as otherwise provided therein. Such regulations shall be promulgated in such manner and take effect at such time, after due notice, as the Commission shall determine.

(Pub. L. 86–613, §10, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 378; Pub. L. 110–314, title II, §204(b)(4)(B), (E), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3041, 3042.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–314, §204(b)(4)(B), substituted "Commission" for "Secretary".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–314, §204(b)(4)(E), substituted "Commission" for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" in two places.
# C_2010234EN.01004502.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/45

---

Action brought on 21 June 2010 — K-Mail Order v OHIM — IVKO (MEN’Z)

(Case T-279/10)

()

2010/C 234/81

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: K-Mail Order GmbH & Co. KG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH (Baar-Wanderath, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2010 in Case R 746/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2010 in Case R 746/2009-1;

| — | Uphold the opposition against allowing the contested Community trade mark application; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the opposition against allowing the contested Community trade mark application; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further consideration;

| — | Order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark MEN’Z for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 18

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the company name ‘WENZ’ used in Germany in the course of trade for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) in conjunction with Article 41(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and infringement of Article 76(1) of that regulation as the applicant’s company name is of more than mere local significance

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13



                         ABC RAIL PRODUCTS CORPORATION

                            AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                        1994 DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN


     This Amendment No. 1 to the 1994 Director Stock Option Plan (the "Director
Plan") shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Board of Directors of
the Corporation.

     The definition of "Eligible Directors" in Section 2 of the Director Plan 
is hereby amended by amending and restating such definition in its entirety as
follows:

          "Eligible Directors" shall mean all Directors except for those who are
     employees of the Company or any Subsidiary or affiliate of the Company.
#### JOSE M. MESA, Appellant v. PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Appellee

Criminal No. 41-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

February 23, 1968

*Counsel for Appellant:*Barrett, Ferenz, Trapp *&*Gayle (Howard G. Trapp, of counsel)

*Counsel for Appellee:*Paul J. Abbate, *Deputy Island Attorney,*Government of Guam

Before SHRIVER, *Judge,*District Court of Guam; SHOE-CRAFT, *Chief Justice,*High Court of the Trust Terri*183tory, Pacific Islands and PEREZ, *Chief Judge,*Island Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

OPINION

The defendant-appellant herein was convicted in Island Court of the offense of battery with which he was charged, along with other offenses. He took the stand and testified, and on cross-examination the Deputy Island Attorney, over objection, was permitted to ask the defendant whether he had been convicted of other disconnected misdemeanors. This Court previously held that when a defendant witness was asked whether he had been convicted of a felony, admitted that he was so convicted, and was then asked whether he had been convicted also of a misdemeanor, this was not reversible error. In the instant case, however, the Island Attorney has admitted prejudicial error and we agree that the determination below must be reversed. It is so ordered.
§ 539.1 Disposal of diseased or otherwise adulterated fish carcasses and parts or fish products. ( a ) ( 1 ) Carcasses or parts of fish affected by abscesses or lesions, zoonotic and non-zoonotic parasites such as cestodes, or such parasites as digenean trematodes, metacercaria (*Bolbophorus* spp.), yellow grubs (*Clinostomum* spp.), or white grubs (Hysteromorpha spp.) are subject to condemnation unless properly disposed of by the establishment to prevent their use as human food.
( 2 ) Fish affected by Heterophyid intestinal flukes or *Dictophymatidae* nematodes are subject to condemnation unless properly disposed of by the establishment.
( b ) Fish affected by diseases, including columnaris (infection by Flavobacterium columnare/*Flexibacter columnaris*) and enteric septicemia of fish (ESC), are subject to condemnation unless properly disposed of by the establishment to prevent their use as human food.
( c ) Fish carcasses or parts or fish products that are found to be in a state of spoilage or decomposition are subject to condemnation unless properly disposed of by the establishment to prevent their use as human food.
( d ) Fish with unusual gross deformities caused by disease or chemical contamination may not be used for human food.
December 31, 2004 Page 1 of 1 

FACT SHEET 

Health Effects of Tsunamis 

Immediate health concerns 

• After the rescue of survivors, the primary public health concerns are clean drinking water, food, 

shelter, and medical care for injuries. 

• Flood waters can pose health risks such as contaminated water and food supplies. 

• Loss of shelter leaves people vulnerable to insect exposure, heat, and other environmental hazards. 

• The majority of deaths associated with tsunamis are related to drownings, but traumatic injuries are 

also a primary concern. Injuries such as broken limbs and head injuries are caused by the physical 

impact of people being washed into debris such as houses, trees, and other stationary items. As the 

water recedes, the strong suction of debris being pulled into large populated areas can further cause 

injuries and undermine buildings and services. 

• Medical care is critical in areas where little medical care exists. 

Secondary effects 

• Natural disasters do not necessarily cause an increase in infectious disease outbreaks. However, 

contaminated water and food supplies as well as the lack of shelter and medical care may have a 

secondary effect of worsening illnesses that already exist in the affected region. 

o Decaying bodies create very little risk of major disease outbreaks. 

o The people most at risk are those who handle the bodies or prepare them for burial. 

Long-lasting effects 

The effects of a disaster last a long time. The greater need for financial and material assistance is in the 

months after a disaster, including 

• surveying and monitoring for infectious and water- or insect-transmitted diseases; 

• diverting medical supplies from nonaffected areas to meet the needs of the affected regions; 

• restoring normal primary health services, water systems, housing, and employment; and 

• assisting the community to recover mentally and socially when the crisis has subsided. 

For more information, visit www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/tsunamis, or call the CDC public response hotline 

at 888-246-2675 (English), 888-246-2857 (español), or 866-874-2646 (TTY).
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Anthony Nightengale, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59831;

First District (1st Division)

November 4, 1974.

*130Philip M. Basvic, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. DriscoH, Jr., and Mary Ellen Dienes, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE BURKE.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA to Prioritize Investments That Address Top Challenges in Rural 

Communities

Projects to Help Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic, Address Impacts of Climate 

Change and Advance Equity Will Receive Funding Priority

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2021 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Justin Maxson today announced that USDA Rural Development will give funding priority for 

projects to address some of the top challenges in rural America.

This funding priority supports the Biden-Harris Administration’s mission to help the people of rural America 

build back better. USDA will notify stakeholders that a program is offering funding priority when the program’s 

application window opens and will continuously update the Priority Points Program Chart.

Rural Development will award priority points on funding applications for projects that will: 

1. Help rural communities recover economically from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly 

in disadvantaged communities.

2. Ensure all rural residents have equitable access to Rural Development programs and will benefit from 

projects Rural Development funds.

3. Reduce climate pollution and increase resiliency to the impacts of climate change by providing 

economic support to rural communities.

USDA is incorporating these key priorities into its work across the agency. The Department is working with our 

partners to encourage potential applicants to focus on strategic investments that complement these priorities.

For more information, visit www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

Application scoring criteria for the programs offering priority points will be included in funding announcements 

and published in the Federal Register when the application window opens.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Mega
Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q
for the period ending April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Aleksandr
Shvarts, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such
Quarterly Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the period
ending April 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form
10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mega Media Group,
Inc.
  By:
                /s/Aleksandr
      ShvartsALEKSANDR
      SHVARTSChief
      Executive Officer,
                  DirectorDate:
                June
      19, 2009
§ 532.3 Exemption of retail operations. ( a ) The exemption in 9 CFR 303.1(d) for operations of types traditionally and usually conducted at retail stores and restaurants applies with respect to fish products as it does with respect to products of other amenable species under the FMIA.
( b ) The exemption also applies to the slaughtering of fish conducted at and by the operator of a retail store or restaurant, with respect to live fish purchased by a consumer at the retail store or restaurant, in accordance with the consumer's instructions.
( c ) A retail quantity of fish or fish products sold to a household consumer is a normal retail quantity if it does not exceed 75 pounds and the quantity of fish or fish product sold by a retail supplier to a non-household consumer is a normal retail quantity if it does not exceed 150 pounds in the aggregate.
{"agency":"PRC","generated":"2018-01-12 09:58:47","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"}],"value":"2018"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["PRC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["4"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["2"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["2"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2018","quarter":"Q1"}
Appendix A: Annual Energy Impacts 2023: 4/2/14

CH4 Flared (ft3/yr)

Energy 

Needed to 

Operate 

Blowers on 

GCCS 

(MWh)

MWh 

generated 

from Engines

Net Energy 

Impacts 

(MWh)

Value of energy 

supply ($/yr)

Energy Demand 

to Operate GCCS 

(MWh)

Energy Supply 

(MWh)

Net 

Energy 

Impacts 

(MWh)

Value of 

energy 

supply 

($/yr)

 1,229,345,911 4,917 338,499 333,582 $21,006

Proposed 2.5/40 1,397,931,182 5,592 381,594 376,002 $23,677 674 42,421 42,421 2,671

Current NSPS requirements (40 CFR 

part 60 subpart WWW)

Total Impacts Incremental Impacts

Impacts of Baseline

Impacts of Proposal
Appendix B: Annual Secondary Air Impacts (2023): 4/2/14

SO2 

From 

LFG 

Flaring 

(tpy)

Hg From 

LFG 

Flaring 

(tpy)

NOx 

From 

LFG 

Flaring 

(tpy)

CO2 from 

Purchased 

Electricity for 

Blowers (tpy)

Hg from 

Purchased 

Electricity for 

Blowers (tpy)

SO2 

From 

LFG 

Engines 

(tpy)

Hg From 

LFG 

Engines 

(tpy)

NOx From 

LFG 

Engines 

(tpy)

Hg From 

Grid (tpy)

CO2 

Avoided SO2 Hg Nox CO2 Hg (tpy) CO2 (tpy) Hg (tpy) CO2 (tpy)

 1,229,345,911 10 0 25 3,030 67 338,499 29 5.64E-04 464 4,604 208,574 39 67 489 3,030 (4,537) (205,544)

Proposed 2.5/40 1,397,931,182 11 0 28 3,445 76 381,594 33 6.36E-04 523 5,190 235,128 44 76 551 3,445 (5,114) (231,683) (577) (26,139)

Current NSPS 

requirements (40 CFR 

part 60 subpart 

WWW)

Impacts of Baseline

Impacts of Proposal

Incremental Net 

Emissions Created Total Net Emissions Emissions

Flaring

Emissions Created Emissions Avoided

LFG Electricity

MWh 

generated 

from 

CH4 Flared (ft3/yr) Engines

Emissions Created

Flare + Energy
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to (i) the Columbus Realty Trust 1993 Share Bonus Plan (Form S-8 No.
33-76774), (ii) the Columbus Realty Trust Bonus Plan (No. 2) (Form S-8 33-
90492), (iii) the Columbus Realty Trust 1993 Share Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-
95918), (iv) the Columbus Realty Trust Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8
No. 33-94798), (v) the Columbus Realty Trust Long Term Management Incentive Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-02276), (vi) the Columbus Realty Trust Employee Incentive Plan
(Form S-8 No. 333-22307), (vii) the registration statement on Form S-3 No. 33-
88672 of Columbus Realty Trust and  in the related Prospectus, (viii) the
registration statement on Form S-3 No. 33-90146 of Columbus Realty Trust and in
the related Prospectus, and (ix) the registration statement on Form S-3 No. 333-
09775 of Columbus Realty Trust and in the related Prospectus our report dated
January 28, 1997 (expect for Note 15, as to which the date is March 7, 1997)
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Columbus
Realty Trust included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 1996.

                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
May 21, 1997
# C_2013352EN.01001102.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Vivendi v Commission

(Case T-432/10) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - French broadband and telephone subscription market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Lack of Community interest - Significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the internal market - Probability of establishing the existence of the alleged infringement)

2013/C 352/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vivendi (Paris, France) (represented initially by: M. Struys, O. Fréget and J.-Y. Ollier; and subsequently by M. Struys, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4730 of 2 July 2010, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against France Télécom relating to an alleged abuse of a dominant position on the French broadband and telephone subscription market (Case COMP/C-1/39.653 — Vivendi & Iliad/France Télécom)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Vivendi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vivendi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Orange to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Orange to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

1

---