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 May 28, 2009

s0520 

# Order

May 28, 2009

137431

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137431 COA: 277184 Wayne CC: 98-005154 ROY BLACKMON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 19, 2008 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.

K ELLY 

### , C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
### §§2465d, 2465e. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–303, title II, §203(3), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2855

Section 2465d, Pub. L. 101–611, title II, §204, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3206, related to requirement to procure commercial launch services.

Section 2465e, Pub. L. 101–611, title II, §205, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3207, related to purchase of commercial launch services.
§ 270.17e-1 Brokerage transactions on a securities exchange. For purposes of section 17(e)(2)(A) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-17(e)(2)(A)], a commission, fee or other remuneration shall be deemed as not exceeding the usual and customary broker's commission, if: ( a ) The commission, fee, or other remuneration received or to be received is reasonable and fair compared to the commission, fee or other remuneration received by other brokers in connection with comparable transactions involving similar securities being purchased or sold on a securities exchange during a comparable period of time;
( b ) The board of directors, including a majority of the directors of the investment company who are not interested persons thereof: ( 1 ) Has adopted procedures which are reasonably designed to provide that such commission, fee, or other remuneration is consistent with the standard described in paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) Makes and approves such changes as the board deems necessary; and
( 3 ) Determines no less frequently than quarterly that all transactions effected pursuant to this section during the preceding quarter (other than transactions in which the person acting as broker is a person permitted to enter into a transaction with the investment company by § 270.17a-10) were effected in compliance with such procedures;
( c ) The board of directors of the investment company satisfies the fund governance standards defined in § 270.0-1(a)(7); and
( d ) The investment company: ( 1 ) Shall maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a copy of the procedures (and any modification thereto) described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
( 2 ) Shall maintain and preserve for a period not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any transactions occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a record of each such transaction (other than any transaction in which the person acting as broker is a person permitted to enter into a transaction with the investment company by § 270.17a-10) setting forth the amount and source of the commission, fee or other remuneration received or to be received, the identity of the person acting as broker, the terms of the transaction, and the information or materials upon which the findings described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section were made.
[44 FR 37203, June 26, 1979, as amended at 58 FR 49921, Sept. 24, 1993; 66 FR 3759, Jan. 16, 2001; 68 FR 3154, Jan. 22, 2003; 69 FR 46389, Aug. 2, 2004]
Order entered December 28, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01261-CV

EX PARTE MICHEAL GEROD MCGREGOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. X-13-1459-W

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 18, 2015 motion for extension of time to file reply 

brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than January 13, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

FULL WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Approval

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to close the following meeting:

Thursday, May 19, 2016

10:00 AM Briefing on Security Issues (Closed - Ex. 1)

The Commission voted 4 to 0 on March 31, 2016, to close this discussion which is reasonably 

expected to involve classified information.

Attendance

- Commissioners and members of their staffs

- Representative of the Commission Staff Offices

- Representatives of the Executive Director for Operations

- Representatives from other Federal Agencies

Contact Person for More Information

Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary (301-415-0681)

 

 /RA/

Denise McGovern

Office of the Secretary

April 19, 2016
#### § 124.6 Termination of manufacturing license agreements and technical assistance agreements.

The U.S. party to a manufacturing license or a technical assistance agreement must inform the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls in writing of the impending termination of the agreement not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of such agreement.

[71 FR 20543, Apr. 21, 2006]
§ 1423.12 Issuance and contents of the complaint. ( a ) After a charge is filed, if it appears to the Regional Director that formal proceedings in respect thereto should be instituted, the Regional Director shall issue and cause to be served on all other parties a formal complaint: *Provided, however,* That a determination by a Regional Director to issue a complaint shall not be subject to review.
( b ) The complaint shall include: ( 1 ) Notice of the charge;
( 2 ) Notice that a hearing will be held before an Adminsitrative Law Judge;
( 3 ) Notice of the time and place fixed for the hearing which shall not be earlier than five (5) days after service of the complaint;
( 4 ) A statement of the nature of the hearing;
( 5 ) A clear and concise statement of the facts upon which assertion of jurisdiction by the Board is predicated;
( 6 ) A reference to the particular sections of chapter 41 of title 22 of the United States Code and the rules and regulations involved; and
( 7 ) A clear and concise description of the acts which are claimed to constitute unfair labor practices, including, where known, the approximate dates and places of such acts and the names of respondent's agents or other representatives by whom committed.
( c ) The Chief Administrative Law Judge may, upon such judge's own motion or upon proper cause shown by any other party, extend the date of the hearing or may change the place at which it is to be held.
( d ) A complaint may be amended, upon such terms as may be deemed just, prior to the hearing, by the Regional Director issuing the complaint; at the hearing and until the case has been transmitted to the Board pursuant to § 1423.26, upon motion by the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing; and after the case has been transmitted to the Board pursuant to § 1423.26, upon motion by the Board at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon by the Board.
( e ) Any such complaint may be withdrawn before the hearing by the Regional Director.
[File No. 6519.]

#### J. B. HAUGEN, Respondent, v. ARMOUR & COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.

(280 N. W. 204.)

Opinion filed March 29, 1938.

*283*Fuller & Powers^*for appellant.

*Goodwin T. Wesllund*and *Oonmy &*Gonmy, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The issues in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Olson v. Armour & Co., decided at this term, ante, 272, 280 N. W. 200. In all, four cases were tried and appeal taken by the defendant in each case. Appellant says that the ease of Olson v. Armour & Co. is typical of. all four cases. An examination of the record shows this to be correct. The same points are involved. The amount of damages allowed is the main issue.

This case, therefore, is controlled by the decision in Olson v. Armour *&*Co. aud-for the reasons set forth in the opinion, therein the judgment is affirmed.

Ci-iristianson, Oh. J., and Burr and Nuessle, JJ., concur.

Morris and Sathre, JJ., dissent.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.15g-1 Exemptions for certain transactions. The following transactions shall be exempt from 17 CFR 240.15g-2, 17 CFR 240.15g-3, 17 CFR 240.15g-4, 17 CFR 240.15g-5, and 17 CFR 240.15g-6: ( a ) Transactions by a broker or dealer: ( 1 ) Whose commissions, commission equivalents, mark-ups, and mark-downs from transactions in penny stocks during each of the immediately preceding three months and during eleven or more of the preceding twelve months, or during the immediately preceding six months, did not exceed five percent of its total commissions, commission equivalents, mark-ups, and mark-downs from transactions in securities during those months; and
( 2 ) Who has not been a market maker in the penny stock that is the subject of the transaction in the immediately preceding twelve months. Note:
Prior to April 28, 1993, commissions, commission equivalents, mark-ups, and mark-downs from transactions in designated securities, as defined in 17 CFR 240.15c2-6(d)(2) as of April 15, 1992, may be considered to be commissions, commission equivalents, mark-ups, and mark-downs from transactions in penny stocks for purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) Transactions in which the customer is an institutional accredited investor, as defined in 17 CFR 230.501(a)(1), (2), (3), (7), (8), (9), (12), or (13). Note 1 to paragraph ( b
):
Though the definition of “family client” from rule 501(a)(13) includes both natural persons and institutions, only family clients that are institutions may be considered institutional accredited investors.
( c ) Transactions that meet the requirements of Regulation D (17 CFR 230.500 *et seq.*), or transactions with an issuer not involving any public offering pursuant to section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
( d ) Transactions in which the customer is the issuer, or a director, officer, general partner, or direct or indirect beneficial owner of more than five percent of any class of equity security of the issuer, of the penny stock that is the subject of the transaction.
( e ) Transactions that are not recommended by the broker or dealer.
( f ) Any other transaction or class of transactions or persons or class of persons that, upon prior written request or upon its own motion, the Commission conditionally or unconditionally exempts by order as consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
[57 FR 18032, Apr. 28, 1992, as amended at 77 FR 18685, Mar. 28, 2012; 85 FR 64278, Oct. 9, 2020]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN LYNN JEFFRIES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

M. KNOWLES,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-55123

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-06114-ER

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Edward Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Allen Lynn Jeffries appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Jeffries contends that the Board of Prison Terms’s 2004 decision to deny

him parole violated his right to due process. During the pendency of this appeal,

FILED

AUG 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-55123

this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge

the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010)

(en banc), overruled on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859

(2011). We construe Jeffries’s briefing as a request for a COA. Because Jeffries

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we deny

his request and dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c).

Jeffries’s motion for copies of records is denied.

DISMISSED.
§ 400.4 Information concerning associated persons of financial institutions that are government securities brokers or dealers. ( a ) Every associated person of a financial institution that is a government securities broker or dealer that is not exempt pursuant to Part 401 of this chapter shall file with such financial institution a completed Form G-FIN-4 (§ 449.4 of this chapter) unless such person has on file with such financial institution a completed and current Form U-4 (promulgated by a self-regulatory organization) or Form MSD-4 (as required for associated persons of bank municipal securities dealers).
( b ) To the extent any information furnished by an associated person pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section (including information on a Form U-4 or Form MSD-4) is or becomes materially inaccurate or incomplete, such associated person shall promptly furnish in writing to such financial institution, in a form acceptable to the appropriate regulatory agency for such financial institution, a statement correcting such information.
( c ) For the purpose of verifying the information furnished by an associated person pursuant to paragraph (a) of this rule, every government securities broker or dealer that is a financial institution shall make inquiry of all other employers of such associated person during the immediately preceding three years concerning the accuracy and completeness of such information.
( d ) Every government securities broker or dealer that is a financial institution not exempt from this section pursuant to Part 401 of this chapter shall: ( 1 ) Promptly obtain and, within 10 days thereafter, file with the appropriate regulatory agency, in a form acceptable to such appropriate regulatory agency, the information required by paragraph (a) of this section (which shall consist of all Forms G-FIN-4 filed and a list of all associated persons who have filed Forms MSD-4 or U-4 with the financial institution since the last such filing, designating whether the associated person is serving in a supervisory or non-supervisory capacity) and by paragraph (b) of this section; and
( 2 ) File with the appropriate regulatory agency within 30 days after the termination of the status of an individual as an associated person a Form G-FIN-5 (§ 449.4 of this chapter), unless— ( i ) The financial institution is required to and has filed a Form U-5 or Form MSD-5 with respect to such person; or
( ii ) The financial institution notifies the appropriate regulatory agency that the individual will remain in the financial institution's employment and the financial institution will continue to update the information about such individual as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and will file a Form G-FIN-5 within 30 days after the termination of such individual's employment with the financial institution.
( e ) Every notice and form filed pursuant to this section shall constitute a “report” within the meaning of sections 15, 15C and 32(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o, 78o-5, 78ff(a)).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1535-0089) [52 FR 27926, July 24, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 11026, Mar. 1, 1995]
Exhibit 99.1


             Statement Under Oath of Principal Executive Officer and
                 Principal Financial Officer Regarding Facts and
                 Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings

I, Douglas N. Daft, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer of The Coca-Cola Company, state and attest that:

     (1)    To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered
            reports of The Coca-Cola Company (the "Company"), and, except as
            corrected or supplemented in a subsequent covered report:

            -  no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material
               fact as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in
               the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials,
               as of the date on which it was filed); and

            -  no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to
               make the statements in the covered report, in light of the
               circumstances under which they were made, not misleading as of
               the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of
               a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the
               date on which it was filed).

     (2)    I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's
            audit committee.

     (3)    In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or
            before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

            -  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001
               of The Coca-Cola Company;

            -  all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all
               definitive proxy materials of The Coca-Cola Company filed with
               the Commission subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K
               identified above; and

            -  any amendments to any of the foregoing.


/s/ DOUGLAS N. DAFT                         Subscribed and sworn to before me
-------------------                         this 12th day of August, 2002.
Douglas N. Daft
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2002                             /s/ JULIE FORDHAM
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Notary Public, Henry County, Georgia

                                            My Commission Expires:
                                            June 20, 2005
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report to Congress onpersonnel security investigations for industry and the National IndustrialSecurity Program**
 
2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
 
SuDoc Number:D 1.2:P 43/4/
Item Number:
CGP systemNumber:
 
September 27, 2018
### §2688j–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–282, title III, §302, May 14, 1974, 88 Stat. 137

Section, Pub. L. 88–164, title II, §247, formerly §246, as added Pub. L. 90–574, title III, §301, Oct. 15, 1968, 82 Stat. 1009; renumbered §247, Pub. L. 91–211, title III, §304, Mar. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 59; amended Pub. L. 91–616, title III, §311, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1851; Pub. L. 93–45, title II, §204(b), June 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 94; Pub. L. 94–63, title VII, §701(e)(5)(B), July 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 352, related to grants and contracts for the prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism. See section 4577 of this title.
### §4101. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) Delivery order contract.—The term "delivery order contract" means a contract for property that—

(A) does not procure or specify a firm quantity of property (other than a minimum or maximum quantity); and

(B) provides for the issuance of orders for the delivery of property during the period of the contract.

(2) Task order contract.—The term "task order contract" means a contract for services that—

(A) does not procure or specify a firm quantity of services (other than a minimum or maximum quantity); and

(B) provides for the issuance of orders for the performance of tasks during the period of the contract.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3778.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4101 | 41:253k. | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303K, as added Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1054(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3265. |

Section
# Subpart 3409.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

**Parent topic:**PART 3409—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

## 3409.400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements FAR subpart 9.4 by detailing policies and procedures governing the debarment and suspension of organizations and individuals from participating in ED contracts and subcontracts.     

## 3409.401 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all procurement debarment and suspension actions initiated by ED. This subpart does not apply to nonprocurement debarment and suspension.     

## 3409.403 Definitions.

The SPE is designated as the *debarring official* and *suspending official* as defined in FAR 9.403 and is designated as the agency official authorized to make the decisions required in FAR 9.406 and 9.407.     

## 3409.406 Debarment.

## 3409.406-3 Procedures.

(b) *Decisionmaking process.*

(1)  			Contractors proposed for debarment may submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and argument in opposition to the proposed debarment. The contractor must submit additional information within 30 days of receipt of the notice of proposal to debar, as described in FAR 9.406–3(c). 

(2) In actions not based upon a conviction or civil judgment, if the contractor's submission in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the proposed debarment, the contractor may request a fact-finding conference. If the Debarring Official determines that there is a genuine dispute of material fact, the Debarring Official will conduct fact-finding and base the decision in accordance with FAR 9.406–3(b)(2) and (d) through (f).     

## 3409.407 Suspension.

## 3409.407-3 Procedures.

(b) *Decisionmaking process.*

(1)  			Contractors suspended in accordance with FAR 9.407 may submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and argument in opposition to the suspension. The contractor must submit this information and argument within 30 days of receipt of the notice of suspension, as described in FAR 9.407–3(c). 

(2) In actions not based upon an indictment, if the contractor's submission in opposition raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the suspension and if no determination has been made, on the basis of Department of Justice advice, that substantial interests of the Government in pending or contemplated legal proceedings based on the same facts as the suspension would be prejudiced, the contractor may request a fact-finding conference. The Suspending Official will conduct fact-finding and base the decision in accordance with FAR 9.407–3(b)(2) and (d) and (e).