alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2016

v No. 325730 Wayne Circuit Court CARL RENE BRUNER II, LC No. 14-008324-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 326542 Wayne Circuit Court MICHAEL DEMOND LAWSON, LC No. 14-005613-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: M ETER , P.J., and S HAPIRO and O’B RIEN , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur with the majority in full as to defendant Lawson. I also concur as to defendant Bruner, but write separately in order to more fully address the hearsay issue. As the majority observes, the challenged statem ents were non-testimonial, and s o no Confrontation Clause issue arises. The question then is whether the statement was admissi ble pursuant to MRE 804(3), which allows for admission of a hearsay statement if the statem ent is against the declarant’s penal interest. I do not agree with the majority’s view that t he trial court’s instruction to the jury to consider the evidence only against defendant Lawson was cura tive. Some limiting

instructions are effective and so me are not. In this case I th ink it would be erroneous to conclude that the jury could ignore the significance of the statement as to Bruner because it was the only evidence that put a gun in his hand at the time of the shooting . Expecting jurors to compartmentalize the relevancy of this very significant evidenc e so as to apply it only to one defendant is simply unrealistic. And given that Webb’s testimo ny had been the subject of pretrial discussion, the trial court would, in my view, have been wise to empanel two juries, as was requested, rather than risk a retrial.-2- Nevertheless, I believe I am bound to affirm. Although the fe deral rule of evidence concerning hearsay statements against interest has been limited to allow admission only of those portions of the statements that are inculpatory as to the declarant

, Williamson v United States 512 US 594, 600-601; 114 S Ct 243 1; 129 L Ed 2d 476 (1994), the same is not true concerning the Michigan rule of evidence. In People v Taylor , 482 Mich 368, 379 n 6; 759 NW2d 361 (2008), the Michigan Supreme Cour t appears to have rejected the Williamson analysis and adopted a broader view of the exception allowing admission of a n entire statement even if only part of the statement is against the declarant’s penal interest . Moreover, even if Williamson controlled, the hearsay reference to the gun might have been ad missible as to Bruner because even that portion of the stateme nt could be construed as agains t Lawson’s penal interest because Lawson’s awareness that his passenger was carrying a gun was im portant to proving that he knowingly aided and abetted the murder.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
EXHIBIT 13.1



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Azteca Holdings, S.A. de C.V. for the period ended December 31, 2003,
Diego Foyo Mejia, Chief Executive Officer of Azteca Holdings, S.A. de C.V., hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2003
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 Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Azteca Holdings, S.A. de C.V.



Date: October 5, 2004



/s/ Diego Foyo MejíaDiego Foyo Mejía Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Azteca Holdings, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by Azteca Holdings, S.A. de C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data used to determine the 

cost factors for the bottom ash MDS wet sluicing O&M costs is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
# L_2016033EN.01003802.xml

| 10.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 33/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 33/38

---

Corrigendum to Decision No 2/2016 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121]

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 29 January 2016
  )

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 79, in the title:

for:

‘Decision No 2/2016 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of “originating products” and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121]’,

read:

‘Decision No 2/2015 of the EU-Switzerland Joint Committee of 3 December 2015 amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the definition of the concept of “originating products” and methods of administrative cooperation [2016/121]’.

---
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

l(vou make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update occ:ordingly rr 

they do not, click (or Tah) into a11d then out <?[the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspect Option I I 

33.5 - 48 

Inspect Option II 148.0 ) sr J II 48 

f) 1( ( ft.l•il t'' 

I 'I( ' 0 i) II 

() )( (loJO 1.-J 

0 ,1( () I I I 

" ;( I •'·! t 

~ (J \)\ i)lt t, ,,, 

(I '•! V.ll<l .- 'r' 

) f' Oi1 ( (I( 

')J)( {) tl {I! 

~ t,i) I Ot ll(•(r 

[)t, 1 

,. (,' (JI II 1 

II() {} 'I llr 

~v I I .011 'JOt' 

,,(,1 ,, (JlJ I II 

···' ., () IJ l'O 

I .Of1 f) 1 )1 

I· t" l• f II' '1,1( 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $740,520 

Costs covered under wan·anty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: ,. 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

If cracks are found, 

additional hours & 4,000.0 $26,000 " I I 

parts costs could 

occur. (max shown) 

' I 01 II 

' ,r; ' 

8 
~ 0.0 ) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? • 

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? , 

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 

YES D NO C8J 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

9
#### Augusta Deronda, Respondent, v. C. *&*S. Marks Shops, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
§ 551.601 Minimum age standards. ( a ) *16-year minimum age.* The Act, in section 3(l), sets a general 16-year minimum age, which applies to all employment subject to its child labor provisions, with certain exceptions not applicable here.
( b ) *18-year minimum age.* The Act, in section 3(l), also sets an 18-year minimum age with respect to employment in any occupation found and declared by the Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous for the employment of minors of such age or detrimental to their health or well-being.
( c ) All work in fire suppression is deemed hazardous for the employment of individuals under 18 years of age. All work in fire protection and prevention is particularly hazardous for the employment of individuals between 16 and 18 years of age, except the following: ( 1 ) Work in offices or in repair or maintenance shops without exposure to hazardous materials;
( 2 ) Work in the construction, operation, repair, or maintenance of living and administrative quarters in firefighting camps without exposure to hazardous materials;
( 3 ) Work in forest protection, such as clearing fire trails or roads, piling and burning slash, maintaining firefighting equipment, or acting as fire lookout or fire patrolman away from the actual logging operations, provided that this provision shall not apply to the felling or bucking of timber, the collecting or transporting of logs, the operation of power-driven machinery, the handling or use of explosives, and work on trestles;
( 4 ) Work in the clean-up service outside of a structure after a fire has been declared by the fire official in charge to be under control; and
( 5 ) Work assisting in the administration of first aid.
[62 FR 67251, Dec. 23, 1997, as amended at 72 FR 52773, Sept. 17, 2007]
GAO-01-1090R Navy Wives Clubs of America

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

August 21, 2001

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Subject: Federally Chartered Corporation: Review of the Financial Statement Audit

 Reports for the Navy Wives Clubs of America for Fiscal Years 1998-2000

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we reviewed the audit reports covering the financial statements of the

Navy Wives Clubs of America, a federally chartered corporation, for the fiscal years

ended August 31, 2000, 1999, and 1998. The corporation’s purpose is to promote a

friendly relationship between the wives of enlisted men who are serving in the active

Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard or in the Active Reserves of those services.

Federally chartered corporations are required under 36 U.S.C. 10101 to

! present the corporation’s assets and liabilities and reasonable detail on the

corporation’s income and expenses in annual financial statements,

! obtain an annual financial audit by an independent public accountant, and

! submit the auditors’ report and the corporation’s financial statements to the

Congress.

The objective of our review was to determine whether the audit reports complied

with the financial reporting requirements of the law. In carrying out our work, we

reviewed the corporation’s financial statements and the accompanying notes,

performed certain analytical procedures related to information presented in the

financial statements, reviewed the auditors’ reports, and made inquiries to

corporation officials or the auditors as we deemed necessary. We did not review the

auditors’ working papers. Our review disclosed no reportable instances of

noncompliance.
Page 2 GAO-01-1090R Navy Wives Clubs of America

The audit reports included the auditors’ opinions that the financial statements of the

corporation were presented fairly. We are returning the audit reports you sent with

your letter.

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey C. Steinhoff

Managing Director

Financial Management and Assurance

w/o Enclosures

(194064)
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2457

_____________________________

VICTOR JEROME BLANEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

August 1, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin Foster Karpf, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, and Benjamin Louis Hoffman, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                Name                             Jurisdiction of Incorporation
<S>                                              <C>
eFunds Corporation                                       California
Analytic Research Technologies, Inc.                     Minnesota
eFunds Canada, Inc.                                      Canada
eFunds Government Services, Inc.                         Delaware
Chex Systems, Inc.                                       Minnesota
eFunds Holdings Limited                                  United Kingdom
eFunds International Limited                             United Kingdom
Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc.                Delaware
iDLX Corporation                                         Delaware
iDLX International B.V.                                  Netherlands
iDLX Holdings B.V.                                       Netherlands
eFunds IT Solutions Group, Inc.                          Delaware
eFunds International India Private Limited               India
eFunds Overseas, Inc.                                    Minnesota
Access Cash International LLC                            Delaware
ACI - Canada, Inc.                                       Minnesota
Samsar ATM Co., Inc.                                     Washington
Evergreen Teller Services, Inc.                          California
Access Cash Canada Co.                                   Canada
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Application for Appointment of a Committee of the Person and Property of Leo H. Baekeland, an Alleged Incompetent Person. Nina B. Wyman, Appellant; Celine Baekeland et al., Respondents.

Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.
### Reg ul atory Evaluation

Docket No. 

### FAA- Directorate Identifier: 

### -AD

l(vou make changes to th e values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update o cc:o rdingly 

# rr they do not, click (o r Tah) into 

### a11d then out <?[the changed cell

. Estimated Costs : Action Costs per Product (e.g ., aircraft, engine, (e.g. , Inspection , prope ll er, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (inc lude cost (labor + 

### u
.s
. for U .S. Fleet Do not includ e oncondition cos ts here access , testing , (@$85 /h parts) Reg istered and close

-up) our) P roducts 

### Inspect Option I I 

### 33.5 

# - 48 Inspect Option II 148.0 

### ) sr J II 

### 48 f) 1( ( ft.l•il t''

I 'I( ' 

### 0 i) II () )( (loJO 1.-J 0 ,1( () I I I 

# " ;( I •'·! t**~** (J \)\ i)lt t, ,,, (I '•! V.ll<l 

### .- 'r' ) f' Oi1 ( (I( ')J)( {) tl {I!**~** t,i) I Ot ll(•(r [)t, 1 

# ,. (,' (JI II 1 II() {} 'I llr**~v** I I .01 1 'JOt' ,,(,1 ,, (JlJ I II 

# ···' ., () IJ l'O

I .Of1 f) 1 )1 I· t" l• f II' '1,1( The known number of products in comp l iance: Total Costs of comp liance for 

### U.S

. fleet: $740 ,520 Costs covered under wan·anty 

### (if 

### known) $

On-Conditio n Costs: , . Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e

.g. , Inspection , (inc lude access , ( @ $85/hour)

replacement) testing , and close

up) 

### If cracks are found , additional hours & 4 ,000.0 $26 ,000 

### " I I 

### parts costs could occur . (max shown) 

# ' I 01 II ' 

### ,r; ' 

### 8**~** 0.0 ) 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to exp lain anything in th e Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? • YES* 

# D NO 

## C8J *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant?

# , YES * 

# D NO 

## C8J *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. YES 

# D NO 

## C8J Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

# ~ YES * 

# D NO 

## C8J *Explanation:



### 9
# L_2017300EN.01002601.xml

| 16.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/26

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 82/2016

of 29 April 2016

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2017/2032]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/26 of 13 January 2016 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards nonylphenol ethoxylates (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/26 of 13 January 2016 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards nonylphenol ethoxylates (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 12zc (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32016 R 0026: Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/26 of 13 January 2016 (OJ L 9, 14.1.2016, p. 1).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32016 R 0026: Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/26 of 13 January 2016 (OJ L 9, 14.1.2016, p. 1).’.

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2016/26 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 30 April 2016, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2016.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 9, 14.1.2016, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**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 Quarterly Report of Alamo Group Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Dan E. Malone, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-  The Form 10-Q fully complies withthe requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
-  The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

| Date:   November 5, 2010 | /s/  Dan E. Malone                                                      |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Dan E.  Malone

Executive  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |
|                               | (Principal  Financial Officer)                                          |
| Home  |  Publications  |  Topic index  |  Surveys  |  Databases  |  Search |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Keep Current!  Subscribe to NSF's Custom News Service |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
 

# National Patterns of Research and Development Resources

-   Archived Publications     - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 2000 *(Early Release Tables)*  These tables were replaced by the report  National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 2000 Data Update *(NSF 01-309)*
  - R&D as a Percentage of GDP Continues Upward Climb *(NSF 99-357)*
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1999 Data Update *(NSF 00-306)*
  - R&D as a Percent of GDP is Highest in Six Years *(NSF 99-302)*
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1998 *(NSF 99-335)*
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1998 *[Early Release Tables]*  These tables were replaced by the report  National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1998 *(NSF 99-335)*
  -  R&D Exceeds Expectations Again, Growing Faster than the U.S. Economy during the Last Three Years *(NSF 97-328)* 
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1997 Data Update
  - R&D Growth Exceeded 1995 Expections, but May Slow in 1996 *(NSF 96-328)* 
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1996 *(NSF 96-333)* 
  - U.S. R&D Spending Will Not Pick Up in '95 *(NSF 95-335)*
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1995 Data Update
  - National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 1994 *(NSF 95-304)* 

 Return to the National Patterns of Research and Development Resources series page.

Contact SRS
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02466

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02466\02466_Checklist_102610_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02466\02466_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02466\02466_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02466\02466_PART H.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 02466\02466_PartA.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 02466\02466_PartE.XLS Plant submitted survey file

02466\CERTIFICATION STATEMENT_ 02466.PDF Plant certification statement

02466\Supporting Documents\02466_ EPA EG ICR -- PWGS MAP-1 Aerial Photo.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02466\Supporting Documents\02466_ EPA EG ICR -- PWGS - WB-1 Water Balance Diagram.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .