alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6002. Purposes for grants

A grant made under section 6001 of this title may be used by a grantee to—

(1) enforce a law that requires individuals under the age of 16 to wear approved bicycle helmets on their heads while riding on bicycles;

(2) provide assistance, to individuals under the age of 16 who may not be able to afford approved bicycle helmets, to enable such individuals to acquire such helmets;

(3) develop and administer a program to educate individuals under the age of 16 and their families on the importance of wearing such helmets in order to improve bicycle safety; or

(4) carry out any combination of the activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

The Administrator shall review grant applications for compliance with this section prior to awarding grants.

(Pub. L. 103–267, title II, §203, June 16, 1994, 108 Stat. 727.)
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  Advisory Committee On Veterans Business Affairs Committee Members 

# Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs Committee Members

## About this document and download

  Download  .pdf

**Effective**
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. 

 

 

May 1, 2018 

s0423 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 1, 2018 

156053(83)(84)(85) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 156053 

 COA: 331190 

Oakland CC: 2014-252692-FH 

DAVID KENT CHAPLIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 5, 2018 order is considered, and it 

is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. The 

motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
### To: 7;:17 

### Cc: '''''"

Subject:

Mr. Devany and Mr. Swanson, Scott Robertson <scott@lewisyoung.com> Sunday, August 05, 2012 9:11 AM**De~any,** Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) jbrauer@newnorth.net; rhiarpt@newnorth.net; thowen58@hotmail.ccm; brosen1307 @gmail.com; BrinkerM@michigan.gov; mayor@ci.brainerd.mn.us; rick@brainerdairport.com; sabaratono@midco.net; shawnm@ci.international-falls.mn.us; bobandersonif@midco.net EAS Proposal for Rhinelander, WI

The purpose ofthis email is to provide comments in regards to proposals to provide air service to Rhinelander Airport. Mywife and I have a cottage approximately 30 miles east of Rhinelander. Living in Utah it is too far to drive so
we fly about six times ayear. While at ourcottage Ioften need to travel for business reasons. In addition, ourfive children and theirfamilies fly in to visit us during theyear. We have tried flying through Chicago. We found that the weather and airtraffic at ORO could result in unpredictable delays. We then began flying through MSP to Rhinelander, via Delta connection and found itto be more reliable and convenient. With MSP being a hub for Delta having a partnerfly into Rhinelander for ease of booking and reward program was beneficial. Iwould encourage you to support service through MSP to Rhinelander. Thank you foryour consideration.


## Scatt

ScottJ. 

### Robertson Principal Lewis Young Robertson &

### Burningham 41 N Rio Grande, Suite 101 SaltLake City, Utah 84101 801-596-0700 800-581-1100 801-596-2800 (Fax) 801-232-7243 

### (Cell) scott(rolewisyoung.com



### CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE- This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files orprevious e-mail messages attachedto it, may contain information that is confidential orlegally privileged. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it

### to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play this transmission andthat any disclosure, copying, i1rinting, distribution or use ofany ofthe information contained in orattached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBfTED. Ifyou have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender 

### by telephone orreturn e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

1
#### MILES K. CURRY, Appellant v. LAURA LUCILLE CURRY, Appellee

Civil No. 16-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

April 2, 1959

*52
      *Counsel for Appellant:*Finton J. Phelan, Jr., Agana, Guam

*Counsel for Appellee:*Turner, Barrett & Ferenz (W. Scott Barrett of counsel), Agana, Guam

Before GILMARTIN, *United States Judge,*District Court of Guam; FURBER, *Chief Justice,*High Court of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and MANIBUSAN, *Chief Judge,*Island Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

OPINION

The appellee’s motion to vacate interlocutory decree of divorce, which was filed on November 29, 1957, in our opinion must be construed as a timely motion for relief from the interlocutory decree in question under the terms of Rule 60 of the Island Court of Guam. The fact that no action was taken on this motion until February 28, 1958, and that in the meantime the appellee had filed a confirmatory or further motion to vacate the interlocutory decree of divorce is, in our opinion, immaterial and the Court’s order vacating the interlocutory decree of divorce, dated February 28,1958, should be construed as based upon the motion filed November 29, 1957 which was clearly filed within the time limit permitted by Rule 60 referred to above.

Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the motion to vacate the interlocutory decree of divorce did not comply with the requirements of Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore should not have been granted, but we hold that Rule 60 of the Island Court of Guam, approved by the Judicial Council December 15, 1954, to be effective January 1, 1955, has superseded the limitations in Section 473 insofar as the rule is inconsistent therewith. The rule was one of those adopted under Section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in part: “All laws of Guam in conflict with such *53rules shall he of no further force and effect after they take effect.”

Any defect there may have been in the original service of process in this case has been cured by the filing of an appearance for the appellee, the motion to vacate interlocutory decree of divorce, and the appellee’s answer filed February 18, 1958.

The Island Court’s order vacating interlocutory decree is accordingly affirmed and the case remanded to the Island Court for further proceedings.
### §272. Establishment of park

#### (a) In general

#### (1) Initial boundaries

Subject to valid existing rights, the lands, waters, and interests therein within the boundary generally depicted on the map entitled "Boundary Map, Proposed Arches National Park, Utah," numbered RPSSC–138–20, 001E and dated September 1969, are hereby established as the Arches National Park (hereinafter referred to as the "park").

#### (2) Expanded boundaries

Effective on October 30, 1998, the boundary of the park shall include the area consisting of approximately 3,140 acres and known as the "Lost Spring Canyon Addition", as depicted on the map entitled "Boundary Map, Arches National Park, Lost Spring Canyon Addition", numbered 138/60,000–B, and dated April 1997.

#### (3) Maps

The maps described in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

#### (b) Abolition of Arches National Monument; funds of monument available for park; administration of lands excluded from monument

The Arches National Monument is hereby abolished, and any funds available for purposes of the monument shall be available for purposes of the park. Federal lands, waters, and interests therein excluded from the monument by this subchapter shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") in accordance with the laws applicable to the public lands of the United States.

(Pub. L. 92–155, §1, Nov. 12, 1971, 85 Stat. 422; Pub. L. 105–329, §2(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3060.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–329 inserted section designation and catchline and in subsec. (a) inserted subsec. heading, inserted par. (1) designation and heading before first sentence, added par. (2), inserted par. (3) designation and heading before second sentence and substituted "The maps described in paragraphs (1) and (2)" for "Such map".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–329, §1, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3060, provided that: "This Act [enacting section 272g of this title, amending this section and sections 272a, 272b, and 272d of this title, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 272g of this title] may be cited as the 'Arches National Park Expansion Act of 1998'."
#### Russell & Company *v.*Morris.

February 18, 1910.

Claim. Before J. P. Brooke, judge pro hac vice. Cobb superior court.

December 21, 1908.

*Philip H. Alston*and *McDaniel, Alston & Black,*for plaintiffs in error. *D. W. Blair*and *B. T. Frey,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. The well-settled rule, in a claim case, that the plaintiff in execution makes out a prima facie ease by proving that the property claimed was in possession of the defendant in fi. fa. after the rendition of the judgment, was not changed by the passage of the recording- act of 1889 (Acts 1889, p. 10(5; Civil Code, §§ 2778, et seq.), which among other things, provides when the lien of a judgment shall take effect as against innocent third parties who have acquired a transfer or lien binding the same property.

2. There was sufficient evidence to authorize an instruction that if the jury believed, under the evidence, that the title to the property levied upon and claimed was at one time in the defendant in execution, the presumption would be that it remained in him until it was shown to have passed out of him.

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. .

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Jtislices concur.*
From: john himes <j_h594@yahoo.com>; 

To: Kenneth.Ready@faa.gov <Kenneth.Ready@faa.gov>; keira.jones@faa.com <keira.jones@faa.com>; 

tdydaddy@gmail.com <tdydaddy@gmail.com>; mcbeec@jdi.socom.mil <mcbeec@jdi.socom.mil>; 

Subject: Re: Fw: Update to Extension/Renewal of Exemption 9294 

Sent: Mon, Mar 11, 2013 4:52:02 PM 

Ms. Jones, sorry the auto fill function beat me again. Please see below. Thank you,

John Himes 

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Ken, IRT the requested exemption, I do not need access to Class B airspace.

Thank you, 

John Himes 

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Users\ARM100KJ\AppData\Local\Temp\1\notesC7A056\~web4039.htm 3/11/2013
Exhibit 10.6

                                IRREVOCABLE PROXY

         The undersigned stockholder of PetMed Express, Inc., a Florida
corporation (the "Corporation"), being the record and beneficial owner of Four
Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty (498,750) shares of Common
Stock (the "Shares") and options (the "Options") to purchase an additional One
Hundred Thousand (100,000) shares of Common Stock (collectively, the
"Securities") of the Corporation hereby irrevocably designates and appoints Marc
A. Puleo, M.D., of the City of Fort Lauderdale, State of Florida, to be its
proxy to attend stockholders' meetings of the Corporation, with full power to
vote and act for it, in its name and place, in the same manner, to the same
extent and with the same effect as through it might vote were duly authorized
representatives of the undersigned present at said meetings, granting to the
said Marc A. Puleo, M.D. the full power of substitution and revocation, subject
to the limitations and restrictions set forth below.

         This Proxy is IRREVOCABLE for a three (3) year period commencing on the
date hereof. Prior to the expiration of such three (3) year period, the term of
this Proxy may be extended for an additional two (2) years by addendum hereto
upon the mutual consent of the undersigned stockholder and Marc A. Puleo, M.D.

         If for any reason this Proxy shall be deemed invalid, in whole or in
part, then in lieu of the Proxy provided to the said Marc A. Puleo, M.D. to vote
the undersigned's Shares, and any shares issuable upon the exercise of the
Option, subject to the conditions hereof, the undersigned agrees that the right
to vote the Shares, and any shares issuable upon the exercise of the Option,
shall be allocated or voted in proportion to the votes cast by all of the
stockholders of the Corporation with respect to the transaction or matter
submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation. By way of example, in the
event the vote cast by the other stockholders of the Corporation participating
in such transaction are voted 75% in favor of the transaction and 25% are voted
in opposition thereto, the undersigned will be deemed to have voted 75% of its
voting interest in favor and 25% of its voting interest against the matter or
transaction at hand.

         DATED:  December 29, 1998.

                         Double Diamond Trading, Ltd., a British Virgin Islands
                         corporation

                         By: /s/ Ami Weitzman
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                               Ami Weitzman, Sole Shareholder

[attestation]

 /s/ Adam Terris
------------------------
1

Memo 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

From: Joseph McDonald 

CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 

Re: Lumsden et al. 2009 citation 

A hard copy of the following citation: 

Lumsden, G., OudeNijeweme, D., Fraser, N. Blaxill, H., 2009, “Development of a Turbocharged Direct 

Injection Downsizing Demonstrator Engine.” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 2009-01-1503. 

is available within EPA’s Docket Center. 

This document has been copyrighted and is not available in the electronic docket. Parties that wish to 

view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
### NEW MEXICO

Final Area Designations f or the

20 08 Ozone National Ambient Air Q uality Standard s

As indicated in the t able below, EPA is designating no counties or portions of counties within New

Mexico as no n attain ment for the 2008 o zone national ambient air quality standard s (20 08 ozone NAAQS)

. In accordance with section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, EPA must designate a n area “nonattainment” if it is violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of the

2008 ozone NAAQS in a nearby area.

Designated Nonattainment Areas in New Mexico

Area New Mexico ’s Recommended

Nonattainment Counties EPA’s Designated

Nonattainment Counties

None None None

State and Tribal Government Recommendations

Governor Richardson submitted an ozone desi gnation recommendation letter for Albuquerque /Bernalillo County to then Acting Regional Administrator , Larry Starfield on February 5, 2009, and

recommendations for the remaining counties in New Mexico in a separate letter on March 11, 2009

. A t that time, a recommendation of “nonattainment” for a portion of Dona Ana County was made, based on a design value of 0.076 ppm at the Desert View monitoring s ite (one of six in the county). This design

value was derived from certified data for the period from 2006

– 2 008.

In a follow

- up letter from New Mexico Secretary of Environment Department Martin to Regional Administrator Armendariz dated October 17, 2011, New Mexico revised its ozone designation

recommendation to “attainment” for all counties . This revised reco mmendation was based on certified data for the period from 2008

– 2010 , which indicate s no violations of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Dona Ana County or elsewhere in the state

.

In addition to the recommendation letters received from the state of New Mexico, EP A also received 2008 ozone designation recommendation letters from Governor Roybal of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso

and Governor Dasheno of the Pueblo of Santa Clara in March 2009. Governor Roybal recommended a designation of “attainment” for the Pueblo of San Ildefonso, and Governor Dasheno recommended a designation of “unclassifiable” for the Pueblo of Santa Clara

.

State and Tribal Government Recommendations Upon evaluation of the recommendations received from the state of New Mexico and tribal authorit ies,

as well as the most recent certified air quality monitoring data, EPA is designating all counties and areas of Indian country in New Mexico as “ unclassifiable/ attainment ” for the 20 08 ozone NAAQS

. There are no ambient air quality monitors within the state of New Mexico with design values that indicate a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS , based on certified data for the period from 2008

- 2010 , and there

are no nonattainment areas that border the state of New Mexico . The nonattainment areas nearest to
New Mexico are the Phoenix

- M esa area in Arizona and the Denver

- Boulder

- Greeley

- Ft Collins

Loveland area in Colorado.
Order issued May 6, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 13 - 00193 - CV

——————————— PETER PRATT AND VICT OR ELGOHARY , Appellant s V. HERRERA PARTNERS, L. P., HERRERA PARTNERS , G. A. HERRERA &

CO., LLC, AND GILBERT A. HERRERA , Appellee s On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2010 - 40476
MEMORANDUM ORDER Appellee and cross

- appellant, Herrera Partners, has filed a motion to dismiss its cross

- appeal. No opinion has issued and no party has filed a response to the motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.1(b), 10.3. Accordingly, we grant the motion and2

dismiss the cr oss - appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). The appeal by Victor Elgohary and Peter Pratt remains pending. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.
March 17, 2015

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer

Office of Aviation Analysis

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Continuation of Alaska Airlines’ Essential Air Service at Adak, Alaska,

Docket DOT-OST-2000-8556

Dear Mr. Schlemmer,

The Aleut Corporation, the regional native corporation representing the Aleutian area in Alaska, strongly 

supports the resolution submitted by Adak City Manager Layton Lockett titled:

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO SELECT ALASKA AIRLINES AS 

THE ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROVIDED FOR ADAK, ALASKA

Many miles separate the island of Adak from the major passenger and cargo hub in Anchorage, and 

without a major jet carrier the community of Adak will be cut off from the lifeline of infrastructure. The 

Adak-based fisheries have relied on Alaska Airlines for shipping fish and transporting employees for many 

years. In accordance with the Adak Strategic Development Plan, jet service by Alaska Airlines is vital to the 

enhanced economic development on the island.

As international shipping increases on the Northern Sea Route, Adak’s deep water port is being looked at 

by worldwide shipping companies as an ideal transshipment hub between Europe and Asia. The next few 

years will see an increase of activity as the Port of Adak develops.

The Aleut Corporation sincerely thanks the Department of Transportation for the many years of the 

Essential Air Service program and looks forward to continued air service to Adak.

Sincerely,

Thomas Mack

President 

Aleut Corporation

One Aleut Plaza, 4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 300, Anchorage, Alaska 99053 | Ph: 907.561.4300, 800.232.4882 | Fax: 907.563.4328 | www.aleutcorp.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                  552
<SECURITIES>                            15,000
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        61,580
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          85,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   17,109
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                4,475
<OTHER-SE>                              (91,817)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            85,708
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        85,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (91,817)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.02)



</TABLE>
§ 35.101 Purpose and broad coverage. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this part is to implement subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131-12134), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADA Amendments Act) (Pub. L. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008)), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.
( b ) *Broad coverage.* The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act's purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of “disability.” The question of whether an individual meets the definition of “disability” under this part should not demand extensive analysis.
[AG Order 3702-2016, 81 FR 53223, Aug. 11, 2016]