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

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

d1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

137913(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137913 COA: 286812 Oakland CC: 2002-183974-FH GARY S. HANN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s August 6, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does notappear that the order was entered erroneously.
### §6616. Support services for Senate during emergency; memorandum of understanding with an executive agency

#### (a) Authorization

Notwithstanding any other provision of law—

(1) subject to paragraph (3), the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the head of an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) may enter into a memorandum of understanding under which the agency may provide facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel, and other support services for the use of the Senate during an emergency situation;

(2) the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the head of the agency may take any action necessary to carry out the terms of the memorandum of understanding; and

(3) the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate may enter into a memorandum of understanding described in paragraph (1) consistent with the Senate Procurement Regulations.

#### (b) Obligations and expenditures

The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate may incur obligations and make expenditures for meals, refreshments, and other support and maintenance for Members, officers, and employees of the Senate when such obligations and expenditures are necessary to respond to emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.

#### (c) Applicability

This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 107–117, div. B, §902, Jan. 10, 2002, 115 Stat. 2316; Pub. L. 116–94, div. P, title XV, §1502, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 3209.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 130g of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002, which is div. B of the Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002.

#### Amendments

2019—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 116–94, §1502(1)(A)(i), substituted "paragraph (3)" for "subsection (b)".

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 116–94, §1502(1)(A)(ii)–(C), added par. (3).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–94, §1502(2), added subsec. (b) and struck out former subsec. (b). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate may enter into a memorandum of understanding described in subsection (a)(1) consistent with the Senate Procurement Regulations."
#### § 165.0 Scope.

This part relates to allegations by the public and requests from Federal agencies for an investigation regarding the evasion of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders and the procedures by which CBP investigates such claims consistent with the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA), which contains Title IV-Prevention of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (short title “Enforce and Protect Act of 2015” or “EAPA”) (Pub. L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, 155, Feb. 24, 2016) (19 U.S.C. 4301 note). This part includes the requirements for the filing of allegations and requests for investigations, the investigation procedures, and administrative review of determinations as to evasion of AD/CVD orders under the EAPA. The procedures under this part are not the exclusive manner by which CBP may receive allegations or requests for an investigation from Federal agencies or investigate such allegations or requests with respect to the evasion of AD/CVD orders. An investigation as described in this part, if initiated by CBP, does not preclude CBP or any other government entity from initiating any other investigation or proceeding pursuant to any other provision of law, including proceedings initiated under 19 U.S.C. 1592.
### SUBCHAPTER I—MONETARY SYSTEM
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. III-02-046 July 25, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC CITES BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR POWER STATION FOR VIOLATION 

OF LOW TO MODERATE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that a violation of NRC safety

regulations at the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station near Braidwood, Illinois, should be characterized

as "white," meaning that it is an issue of low to moderate importance to safety. The plant, which has

two reactors, is operated by Exelon Generation Company.

An NRC inspection in February found that the utility had not taken adequate corrective action

for valve problems affecting the functioning of a plant safety system which would control reactor

pressure under certain accident conditions. 

The valves, which are designed to maintain sufficient air pressure to operate the safety system,

had excessive leakage when tested in September of last year. Similar problems had been found during

testing on seven occasions since 1991.

Under its safety significance determination process, NRC officials classify certain conditions at

nuclear power plants as being one of four colors which delineate increasing levels of safety

significance, beginning with green and progressing to white, yellow or red. 

A preliminary "white" determination for the valve leakage problem was described in an letter to

Exelon on June 25, which provided the company with an opportunity to request a regulatory

conference to discuss this issue. Exelon subsequently informed the NRC that it did not contest the

"white" characterization of the safety significance of this finding and did not request a meeting with

the NRC staff.

In addition to the white determination, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation to Exelon for

failing to take effective action to correct the valve problems and prevent a recurrence.

The "white" finding may result in future NRC inspections focusing on the plant’s corrective

action program and its response to the valve failures. In addition, because of another "white" issue

involving the failure of an auxiliary feedwater pump to start in February, the NRC staff may schedule

additional inspections or meetings with the utility to review plant performance more broadly.

Additional details on the "white" finding are available in Inspection Report 2002-03, issued

March 15, which is available from the Region III Office of Public Affairs or on the NRC's web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BRAI1/brai1_chart.html

# # #
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-70345) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan, 1998 Stock Option Plan, and 1998 Supplemental Stock Option Plan of United Rentals, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60458) pertaining to the2001 Stock Plan of United Rentals, Inc., the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.’s 333-74091 and 333-87903) pertaining to the options outstanding in connection with the 1997 Performance Award Plan of U.S. Rentals assumed pursuant tothe merger with U.S. Rentals of United Rentals, Inc., the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.’s 333-39770 and 333-98567) pertaining to the United Rentals, Inc. 401(k) Investment Plan and United Rentals, Inc. Acquisition Plan of UnitedRentals, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113787) pertaining to the 2001 Senior Stock Plan of United Rentals, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-116882) pertaining to the Deferred Compensation Plan forDirectors of United Rentals, Inc. of our reports dated March 29, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of United Rentals, Inc., United Rentals, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of United Rentals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/S/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

New York, New York 

March 29, 2006
### §308. United States Customs Service

The United States Customs Service, established under section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1927 (19 U.S.C. 2071), is a service in the Department of the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 880.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 308 | (no source). | |

The section is included to provide in subchapter I of chapter 3 of the revised title a complete list of the organizational units established by law that are in the Department of the Treasury or are subject to the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203(1), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. For establishment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, treated as if included in Pub. L. 107–296 as of Nov. 25, 2002, see section 211 of Title 6, as amended generally by Pub. L. 114–125, and section 802(b) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as a note under section 211 of Title 6.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Change of Name

Bureau of Customs redesignated United States Customs Service by Treasury Department Order 165–23, Apr. 4, 1973, eff. Aug. 1, 1973, 38 F.R. 13037.
### §125. Patents in North Platte Reclamation Project; mineral rights; subrogation

Where reclamation homestead entry was made prior to July 17, 1914, pursuant to the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 389, 43 U.S.C., sec. 431), as amended and supplemented, for lands in the Northport Division or the Interstate Division of the North Platte Reclamation Project, and after such entry the lands have been or are hereafter withdrawn, classified, or reported as being valuable for any of the minerals named in sections 81 and 121 to 124 of this title, the patent shall not contain a reservation of such minerals. If any such mineral deposits on account of which the lands were withdrawn, classified or reported as being valuable have been leased by the United States, such patent shall be made subject to the rights of the lessee, but the patentee shall be subrogated to the rights of the United States under the lease.

(Apr. 17, 1954, ch. 152, 68 Stat. 56.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June 17, 1902, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to chapter 12 (§371 et seq.) of Title 43, Public Lands. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of Title 43 and Tables.
### §194b. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5421, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1468, which directed President or head of appropriate department or agency to include in every recommendation or report made to Congress on legislation which might affect ability of United States firms to compete in domestic and international commerce a statement of impact of such legislation on international trade and public interest and ability of United States firms engaged in the manufacture, sale, distribution, or provision of goods or services to compete in foreign or domestic markets, ceased to be effective six years from Aug. 23, 1988, pursuant to subsec. (c) of section.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.4  


 
 

AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
  
  AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
  TO
  1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN    
  


        The American Federal Savings Bank 1998 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as set forth below, effective April 19, 2000 (the "Adoption Date"),
subject to approval of this Amendment Number 1 by the shareholders of American Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank"), as provided below: 


        1.    The
second sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 



        "The
number of shares of Stock that may be issued pursuant to Options granted under the Plan shall not exceed in the aggregate 231,000 shares; provided,
however, that Options for no more than 50,000 shares of Stock, in the aggregate, shall be granted pursuant to Section 4(b) below." 




        2.    The
Plan shall otherwise be unchanged by this Amendment Number 1. 


        3.    This
Amendment Number 1 is adopted subject to approval within one year of the Adoption Date by a majority of the votes present, in person or by proxy, and entitled
to vote at a duly held meeting of the shareholders of the Bank at which a quorum representing a majority of all outstanding voting stock is present, in person or by proxy;  provided, however, that upon
approval of Amendment Number 1 by the shareholders of the Bank as set forth above, any options granted under the
Plan on or after the Adoption Date pursuant to Amendment Number 1 shall be fully effective as if the shareholders of the Bank had approved Amendment Number 1 on the Adoption Date. If the
shareholders fail to approve Amendment Number 1 within one year of the Adoption Date, any options granted covering shares of stock in excess of the number permitted under the Plan (as in effect before
the Adoption Date) shall be null and void and of no effect. 


        *        *        * 






        Amendment
Number 1 to the Plan was duly adopted and approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation by resolution at a meeting held on April 19, 2000, subject to
approval of Amendment Number 1 by shareholders of the Corporation. 



	 	 	/s/  JANIE CAPRETTI      
 Janie Capretti, Secretary





        Amendment
Number 1 to the Plan was duly adopted by the shareholders of the Corporation at a meeting held on April 19, 2000. 



	 	 	/s/  JANIE CAPRETTI      
 Janie Capretti, Secretary











QuickLinks


AMERICAN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO 1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 4880]

# AGENCY:

Department of State.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Jacob van Ruisdael: Master of Landscape,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, from on or about June 26, 2005, until on or about September 18, 2005, at the Philadelphia Museum of Art from on or about October 23, 2005 until on or about February 5, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

Dated: October 20, 2004.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04-24053 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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 April 29, 2013

h0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146018

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146018

COA: 309670

Wayne CC: 05

- 011901

- FC

JAMAL DION THOMAS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6301

ROBERT E. YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

IKE ROBINSON, Administrator,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

COUNTY OF ABBEVILLE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (6:04-cv-00823-JFA)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert E. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,

CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert E. Young appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Young v. Robinson,

No. 6:04-cv-00823-JFA (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2006). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-21 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, February 5, 1999)

NRC TO HOLD BRIEFING ON YEAR 2000 ISSUES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a briefing on Year 2000 issues on

Thursday, February 11, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners’ Conference Room.

The NRC is located at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Maryland, directly across from

the White Flint Metro stop on the Red Line. The meeting, expected to last about 90 minutes,

will be open to the public and media.

John Koskinen, Chair of the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion, will provide

an overview of the Federal government’s Year 2000 problems. Frank Miraglia, the NRC’s

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, will provide the Commission with a

status report on agency Y2K activities with regard to regulation of its licensees. Jim Davis of

the Nuclear Energy Institute, will discuss the industry’s activities to prepare nuclear power

plants for the Year 2000 computer problem.

The “Year 2000" or Y2K problem refers to computers’ potential inability to recognize

dates beginning with January 1, 2000, and beyond. It is caused by computer programs that use

two-digit numbers to represent a calendar year (such as “98" for 1998). If the problem is not

corrected, vulnerable computer systems will read “00" as 1900, rather than 2000, possibly

causing some systems or equipment to malfunction.

##
450 P.2d 633

#### In the Matter of Manford W. RAINWATER, Attorney at Law.

No. 8000 Misc.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 11, 1969.

NOBLE, Chief Justice, and MOISE, COMPTON, CARMODY and TACKETT, Justices, concurring.

Whereas, the Respondent, Manford W. Rainwater, an attorney at law, was cited to show cause before this Court why he should not be held in contempt for failure to file a brief on or before a day certain in the appeal of Ernest Moser, an indigent defendant whom respondent had been appointed to representand

Whereas, said respondent appeared • pro se at said contempt hearing, said contempt being prosecuted by Mr. Justin Reid, Assistant Attorney General, at the request of this Court; and the Court having examined the record and having heard the respondent, and being fully informed and advised in the premises;

Finds:

That the respondent, Manford W. Rainwater, wilfully and deliberately disobeyed a direct written order of this Court in failing and refusing to file a brief within the time required by such order;

That said Manford W. Rainwater is in contempt of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico.

Therefore ordered that said Manford W. Rainwater be and hereby is in open court censured and reprimanded for such disobedience of the order of this Court.

Further ordered that said Manford W. Rainwater pay a fine of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) to the Clerk of this Court.

Further ordered that said fine be suspended upon condition that said Manford W. Rainwater in the future not violate any order or rule of this Court. Upon proof of violation of this condition of suspension, this fine as well as any other penalty imposed will be enforced.
#### Alexander Von Elterlein, Jr., an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ.