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

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 March 25, 2011

p0322 

# Order

March 25, 2011

142500

SC: 142500 In re D. G. DAVIS, Minor. COA: 297295 Wayne CC Family Division: 02-412846-NA

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY



### , M ARKMAN 

### , and H ATHAWAY 

### , JJ., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacate the trial cour t’s order terminating the respondent father’s parental rights, and remand this case to that court for further proceedings.
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.43 [Reserved]
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Charles I.
Leone, certify that:

1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.;

2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors:

(a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

(b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March
18, 2005

/s/ Charles
I. Leone
Charles I. Leone
Executive Vice President and
        Chief Administrative Officer
        (Acting Chief Financial Officer
        and Principal Financial Officer)

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of PSB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:


      1.    The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of PSB.

/s/ ANTHONY DISANDRO,
-------------------------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ JOHN CARROZZA,
-------------------------------------------------
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 28, 2006
Honorable Randy C. Hufhan, Secretary 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

601 - 57th Street 

Charleston, West Virginia 253 04 

Dear Secretary Hufhan: 

On March 12,2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone to provide increased protection of 

public health and welfare fiom ozone pollution. The new primary ozone standard was lowered 

fiom 0.08 parts per million (pprn) to 0.075 ppm based on numerous epidemiological studies 

conducted during the past decade in which many of the health effects associated with ozone 

exposure have been demonstrated at and below the level of the 0.08 ppm standard, which was 

promulgated in 1997. These include a range of serious respiratory effects and increased 

premature mortality. EPA also strengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone standard, making it 

identical to the revised primary standard, to protect against welfare effects such as impacts on 

vegetation and forested ecosystems. 

Within one year of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(l)(A) of 

the Clean Air Act requires the Governor of each state to submit to EPA a list of all areas in the 

state, recommending designations for each as "attainment," "nonattainment," or "unclassifiable" 

with respect to the new or revised standard. Therefore, EPA asks that you provide your 

designation recommendations, including appropriate area boundaries, to EPA by March 12,2009 

with respect to the revised ozone NAAQS. Establishing area designations is a key step in the 

process of providing the health protections that the Clean Air Act mandates. Areas that are 

designated as not attaining the air quality standards will be required to adopt plans to reduce 

ambient concentrations of ozone. 

The enclosed memorandum provides guidance to state and local air pollution control 

agencies and Tribes on the process for designating areas under the 2008 revised ozone standard. 

EPA plans to announce our intended designations as early as possible after receipt of your 

recommendations, but no later than 120 days prior to promulgating final designations. 

Following the announcement of intended designations, states and Tribes will have the 

opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their recommendations. In 

accordance with section 107(d)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act, we intend to issue final designations 

by March 12,2010 (although that deadline may be extended up to one additional year if EPA 

determines that insufficient information is available to establish designations by that date). Our 

designations will be based on the most recent three years of certified, quality assured monitoring 

data available. Ozone nonattainment areas will be classified at the time of designation. The 

approach EPA will use to classify nonattainment areas under the 2008 revised ozone NAAQS 

will be established through a separate notice-and-comment rulemaking. 
Donald S. Welsh Regional Administrator 

Enclosure cc: Mr. John A. Benedict, Division of Air Quality Director 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1541 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1541

     To amend title 13, United States Code, to provide for a just 
      apportionment of Representatives in Congress for all States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2003

 Mrs. Maloney (for herself, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Serrano, 
  Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Jackson of Illinois, and Mr. Wynn) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 13, United States Code, to provide for a just 
      apportionment of Representatives in Congress for all States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF SAMPLING.

    Section 195 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by striking 
``Except for the determination of population for purposes of 
apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, 
the'' and inserting ``The''.
                                 <all>
```
### SUBCHAPTER II—OPERATION AND REVIEW
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30914 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TAMMY M. SCOTT, also known as Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant-Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:04-CR-156-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tammy M. Scott challenges the 60-month sentence that was imposed following her conviction for three charges of distribution of cocaine base. She argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance and that the district court erred by failing to sua sponte recognize counsel’s deficiencies and to reduce her sentence accordingly. We decline to review Scott’s ineffective assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Scott’s argument concerning the districtNo. 05-30914 -2- court’s purported failure to recognize counsel’s deficiencies is unpersuasive. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### §1389. De minimis rule

#### (a) Reduction of unfunded vested benefits allocable to employer withdrawn from plan

Except in the case of a plan amended under subsection (b), the amount of the unfunded vested benefits allocable under section 1391 of this title to an employer who withdraws from a plan shall be reduced by the smaller of—

(1) 3⁄4 of 1 percent of the plan's unfunded vested obligations (determined as of the end of the plan year ending before the date of withdrawal), or

(2) $50,000,

reduced by the amount, if any, by which the unfunded vested benefits allowable to the employer, determined without regard to this subsection, exceeds $100,000.

#### (b) Amendment of plan for reduction of amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to employer withdrawn from plan

A plan may be amended to provide for the reduction of the amount determined under section 1391 of this title by not more than the greater of—

(1) the amount determined under subsection (a), or

(2) the lesser of—

(A) the amount determined under subsection (a)(1), or

(B) $100,000,

reduced by the amount, if any, by which the amount determined under section 1391 of this title for the employer, determined without regard to this subsection, exceeds $150,000.

#### (c) Nonapplicability

This section does not apply—

(1) to an employer who withdraws in a plan year in which substantially all employers withdraw from the plan, or

(2) in any case in which substantially all employers withdraw from the plan during a period of one or more plan years pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw, to an employer who withdraws pursuant to such agreement or arrangement.

#### (d) Presumption of employer withdrawal from plan pursuant to agreement or arrangement applicable in action or proceeding to determine or collect withdrawal liability

In any action or proceeding to determine or collect withdrawal liability, if substantially all employers have withdrawn from a plan within a period of 3 plan years, an employer who has withdrawn from such plan during such period shall be presumed to have withdrawn from the plan pursuant to an agreement or arrangement, unless the employer proves otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4209, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1225.)
#### Dollar Savings Bank of the City of New York, Appellant, v. Sunnybrook Associates, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. Henry G. Waltemade, as Receiver, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 734.]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-03-041 May 27, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC OVERSIGHT PANEL TO MEET WITH DAVIS-BESSE OFFICIALS JUNE 3

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Davis-Besse oversight panel will hold two meetings on

Tuesday, June 3, to review the status and adequacy of recent activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear

Power Station resulting from the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head. 

The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company near Oak Harbor, Ohio, has

been shut down since February 16 of last year. 

The meetings will be at the Camp Perry Clubhouse, 1000 Lawrence Road, Bldg. 600, on

Highway 2 west of Port Clinton. A picture identification is required to enter Camp Perry; the guards

will provide visitors with directions to the meeting site.

The first meeting will begin at 2 p.m. (EDT), when the NRC oversight panel, set up to

coordinate the agency’s activities associated with the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head, will

meet with utility officials. The meeting will focus on the status of repairs at the plant, results of recent

NRC inspections and upcoming activities. The public is invited to observe the business portion of the

meeting and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions of the NRC staff before the

meeting is adjourned.

The second meeting will begin at 7 p.m. (EDT) for the oversight panel to update the public on

NRC’s activities related to the reactor vessel head degradation and to provide a summary of the earlier

meeting. The public will be invited to ask questions and make comments. 

Transcripts of both oversight panel meetings will be posted in several weeks on the NRC’s web

site  http://www.nrc.gov. Select "Davis-Besse" from the Key Topics menu.

The NRC oversight panel includes NRC management and staff from its Region III office in

Lisle, Illinois; the NRC Headquarters office in Rockville, Maryland; and the NRC Resident Inspector

Office at the Davis-Besse site.

Documents on the Davis-Besse corrosion issue, including further details on NRC’s oversight

panel activities, are posted on the NRC’s web site.

# # #
Opinion issued January 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00829-CV

———————————

JOEL LANDRICK ARD, JR., Appellant

V.

AVIGNON HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1035989

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Joel Landrick Ard, Jr., has neither paid the required fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013); 

Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts 
2

of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket 

No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 42.3(c).

We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.
Exhibit 10.2
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                            ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT

                                      AMONG

                              SURETY HOLDINGS CORP.

                                       AND

                                MILLENNIUM SPORTS
                              & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

                                       AND

                         MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL SPORTS
                              & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC


       Pursuant  to  Section  16 of the Asset  Purchase  Agreement  by and among
Surety Holdings Corp., Millennium Sports & Entertainment,  Inc. ( the "Purchaser
Subsidiary")  and Millennium  International  Sports &  Entertainment,  LLC, (the
"Company").the following instrument amends and modifies Section 2.1 as follows:

       1.     The Purchase  Price  provided for in Section 2.1 is  predicated on
total  revenues  generated  solely from the sale(s) of sports and  entertainment
memorabilia from the Company inventory as set forth on Disclosure Schedule 5.3.

       The  parties  agree  that  additional  revenues  on a net basis  shall be
credited  towards the revenue  requirements  set forth in Section 2.1. By way of
example, in the event the Purchaser  Subsidiary arranges for a guest appearance;
by an athlete,  then the  difference  between  the amount paid by the  Purchaser
Subsidiary  for the  athlete's  appearance  and the amount paid to the Purchaser
Subsidiary for the appearance shall be credited to the revenue targets.

       In all other  respects the Asset Purchase  Agreement  between the parties
remains as drafted and has not been changed or modified.


                               SURETY HOLDINGS CORP., Purchaser

                               By:      /S/ HOWARD R. KNAPP
                               Name:        HOWARD R. KNAPP
                               Title:       Chief Financial Officer, Director

<PAGE>


                               MILLENNIUM INTERNATIONAL SPORTS &
                               ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Seller

                               By:      /S/ NAT MANZELLA
                               Name:        NAT MANZELLA
                               Title:       Member


                               MILLENNIUM SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
                               Purchaser Subsidiary

                               By:      /S/ HOWARD R. KNAPP
                               Name:        HOWARD R. KNAPP
                               Title:       Chief Financial Officer, Director


                                        2
Order entered May 27, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00257

- CV

SUN TEC COMPUTER, IN C., ET AL., Appellant s

V.

THE RECOVAR GROUP, L LC, TAX DEBT ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the C ounty Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 00745



### O RDER

W e GRANT court reporter Coral L. Hough’s May 23, 2014 request for extension of time

to file record and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than June 12, 2014

.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
§ 1215.29 Use of credit reporting agencies. ( a ) The MSPB may report delinquent accounts to credit reporting agencies consistent with the notice requirements contained in the § 1215.26. Individual debtors must be given at least 60 days written notice that the debt is overdue and will be reported to a credit reporting agency.
( b ) Debts may be reported to consumer or commercial reporting agencies. Consumer reporting agencies are defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and 31 U.S.C. 3711(f). The MSPB may disclose only an individual's name, address, Social Security number, and the nature, amount, status and history of the debt and the program under which the claim arose.