alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131280 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan CLAY TITUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131280 COA: 265392 WCAC: 04-000119 SAFWAY STEEL PRODUCTS and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 13, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0821 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.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
#### Katherine Dostanko, Appellant, v Lawrence Dostanko, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 15, 1974, as granted the defendant’s motion to modify a prior judgment of divorce to the extent of reducing the alimony payments directed therein from $40 per week to $25 per week. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. Defendant-respondent moved for a downward modification of the matrimonial allowances contained in the judgment of divorce on the ground of a substantial change of circumstances due to his decreased ability to pay. The record before the court is replete with numerous conflicting statements and contrasting data with respect to the income of both parties, the expenses of both parties, and their assets. Under the circumstances, Special Term acted improvidently in failing to direct a hearing to determine the current financial situation of the parties (see *Sarnicola v Sarnicola,*50 AD2d 842; *Espejo v Espejo,*41 AD2d 555). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Jennie Corten, Respondent, v. Harbor Hospital, Inc., Appellant.

Evidence was adduced upon the trial from which the jury could find that respondent’s removal was an administrative act on appellant’s part, made over respondent’s protest and without the consent and against the advice of respondent’s surgeon, for appellant’s own purpose and benefit and not in the medical treatment of respondent, and that such removal was the competent producing cause of respondent’s injury, *(Necolayjf*v. *Genesee Hosp.,*270 App. Div. 648, 652, affd. 296 N. V. 936; *Hendrickson*v. *Hodkin,*276 N. Y. 252, 258; *Santos*v. *Unity Hosp.,*301 N. Y. 153, 156; *Gordon*v. *Harbor Hosp.,*275 App. Div. *6741047.) Appellant made no requests to charge (see *Haefeli*v. *Woodrich Engineering Co.,*255 N. Y. 442, 445), and we find no error affecting a substantial right of appellant. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 106.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.
#### §§ 1600.171-1600.999 [Reserved]
#### § 214.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part prescribe administrative guidelines and management controls for A.I.D. advisory committees. Federal Advisory Committees are governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463 (effective January 5, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act); Executive Order No. 11769 (February 21, 1974) entitled “Committee Management;” OMB Circular A-63 (March 27, 1974, as amended).
### §3057f. Surplus educational facilities

#### (a) Multipurpose senior centers

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall make available surplus Indian educational facilities to tribal organizations, and nonprofit organizations with tribal approval, for use as multipurpose senior centers. Such centers may be altered so as to provide extended care facilities, community center facilities, nutrition services, child care services, and other supportive services.

#### (b) Applications; submission; contents

Each eligible tribal organization desiring to take advantage of such surplus facilities shall submit an application to the Secretary of the Interior at such time and in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information, as the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §615, as added Pub. L. 100–175, title I, §171, Nov. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 961.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3057f, Pub. L. 89–73, title VI, §607, as added Pub. L. 95–478, title I, §106, Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1551, related to payments, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 100–175. See section 3057m of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1987, except not applicable with respect to any area plan submitted under section 3026(a) of this title or any State plan submitted under section 3027(a) of this title and approved for any fiscal year beginning before Nov. 29, 1987, see section 701(a), (b) of Pub. L. 100–175, set out as an Effective Date of 1987 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.
WATERS |

CARBON

SWEET)

Sand HE Other Conifer
ME Barren Communities [| Agriculture/Town
(98) Broadleaf Communities IB Greasewood

(8) Mountain Shrub QO Juniper Woodland
Grassland Communities

Sage Brush
Saltbush Fans and Flats

Salt Brush

* Vegetation was classified using GAP analysis.

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

1°) 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
Oo 5 10 20 30 40 50
aS
Miles
Map 3-10

Vegetation Communities
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-327 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SINGAPORE 

Signed at Washington March 27, 2007 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SINGAPORE 

Scientific Cooperation 

Agreement signed at Washington March 27, 2007; 

 Entered into force March 27, 2007.
#### § 312.635 Drug-free workplace.

*Drug-free workplace* means a site for the performance of work done in connection with a specific award at which employees of the recipient are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance.
#### § 1501.4 Availability of information pertaining to Foundation operations.

Rules of procedure and forms used for the funding of ADF projects may be obtained upon application to the Office of Program and Field Operations at ADF headquarters, 1724 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC LEWIS,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-3009 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On June 18, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the California Board of Prison

Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition

and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-03009-MMC Document 9 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03009-MMC Document 9 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 35.28 Motions. ( a ) Any application to the ALJ for an order or ruling shall be by motion. Motions shall state the relief sought, the authority relied upon, and the facts alleged, and shall be filed with the ALJ and served on all other parties.
( b ) Except for motions made during a prehearing conference or at the hearing, all motions shall be in writing. The ALJ may require that oral motions be reduced to writing.
( c ) Within 15 days after a written motion is served, or such other time as may be fixed by the ALJ, any party may file a response to such motion.
( d ) The ALJ may not grant a written motion before the time for filing responses thereto has expired, except upon consent of the parties or following a hearing on the motion, but may overrule or deny such motion without awaiting a response.
( e ) The ALJ shall make a reasonable effort to dispose of all outstanding motions prior to the beginning of the hearing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA ROVAI-PICKETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HMS HOST, INC., HOTEL EMPLOYEES &

RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES LOCAL #2,

DOES 1 THRU 50

Defendants. /

No. C-08-1625 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Before the Court is plaintiff Linda Rovai-Pickett’s (“plaintiff”) “Motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis,” filed February 16, 2010. Having read and considered the

motion, it is hereby DENIED for the following reasons. First, plaintiff has not submitted an

affidavit setting forth why she is unable to pay the $455 fee to file a notice of appeal;

second, plaintiff fails to state the issues she intends to present on appeal. See Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a).

Plaintiff is hereby advised that she may file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01625-MMC Document 124 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 312.220 By when must I publish my drug-free workplace statement and establish my drug-free awareness program?

If you are a new recipient that does not already have a policy statement as described in § 312.205 and an ongoing awareness program as described in § 312.215, you must publish the statement and establish the program by the time given in the following table:

| If . . . | then you . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (a) The performance period of the award is less than 30 days | must have the policy statement and program in place as soon as possible, but before the date on which performance is expected to be completed. |
| (b) The performance period of the award is 30 days or more | must have the policy statement and program in place within 30 days after award. |
| (c) You believe there are extraordinary circumstances that will require more than 30 days for you to publish the policy statement and establish the awareness program | may ask the Peace Corps awarding official to give you more time to do so. The amount of additional time, if any, to be given is at the discretion of the awarding official. |
### §§2491 to 2494. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, §662(1), Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 188

Section 2491, Pub. L. 85–905, §1, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1742; Pub. L. 87–715, §1(a), Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 654; Pub. L. 89–258, Oct. 19, 1965, 79 Stat. 983; Pub. L. 90–247, title I, §155(a), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 804, contained statement of purposes for the provisions.

Section 2492, Pub. L. 85–905, §2, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1742; Pub. L. 89–258, Oct. 19, 1965, 79 Stat. 983; Pub. L. 90–247, title I, §155(b), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 91–61, §1(2), Aug. 20, 1969, 83 Stat. 103, defined "Secretary", "United States", "deaf person", "handicapped", and "construction".

Section 2493, Pub. L. 85–905, §3, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1742; Pub. L. 87–715, §1(b), Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 654; Pub. L. 89–258, Oct. 19, 1965, 79 Stat. 983; Pub. L. 90–247, title I, §155(c), (d)(1), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 91–61, §1(1), Aug. 20, 1969, 83 Stat. 102, provided for establishment of a loan service of captioned films and educational media for handicapped and authority of Secretary.

Section 2494, Pub. L. 85–905, §4, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1743; Pub. L. 87–715, §1(c), Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 654; Pub. L. 89–258, Oct. 19, 1965, 79 Stat. 984; Pub. L. 90–247, title I, §155(e), Jan. 2, 1968, 81 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 91–61, §1(3), Aug. 20, 1969, 83 Stat. 103, authorized appropriations for fiscal years ending as indicated: $3,000,000 (June 30, 1966, and 1967), $8,000,000 (June 30, 1968, and 1969), $10,000,000 (June 30, 1970), $12,500,000 (June 30, 1971), $15,000,000 (June 30, 1972), and $20,000,000 (June 30, 1973 and thereafter).

Such former provisions are covered by various sections of Title 20, Education, as follows:

| Former Sections | Title 20 Sections |
| --- | --- |
| 2491 | 1451 |
| 2492(1) | 1401(14) |
| 2492(2) | 1401(2) |
| 2492(3) | Repealed |
| 2492(4) | 1401(1) |
| 2492(5) | 1401(4) |
| 2493(a), (b) | 1452(a), (b) |
| 2493(c)(1)(A) to (C) | 1453(a)(1) to (3) |
| 2493(c)(1)(D) | 1232b |
| 2493(c)(2) | 1453(b) |
| 2493(c)(3) | 1404 |
| 2494 | 1454 |

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 91–230, title VI, §662, Apr. 13, 1970, 84 Stat. 188, provided that the repeal is effective July 1, 1971.
### §2000aa–7. Definitions

(a) "Documentary materials", as used in this chapter, means materials upon which information is recorded, and includes, but is not limited to, written or printed materials, photographs, motion picture films, negatives, video tapes, audio tapes, and other mechanically, magentically 1 or electronically recorded cards, tapes, or discs, but does not include contraband or the fruits of a crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or which is or has been used as, the means of committing a criminal offense.

(b) "Work product materials", as used in this chapter, means materials, other than contraband or the fruits of a crime or things otherwise criminally possessed, or property designed or intended for use, or which is or has been used, as the means of committing a criminal offense, and—

(1) in anticipation of communicating such materials to the public, are prepared, produced, authored, or created, whether by the person in possession of the materials or by any other person;

(2) are possessed for the purposes of communicating such materials to the public; and

(3) include mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or theories of the person who prepared, produced, authored, or created such material.

(c) "Any other governmental unit", as used in this chapter, includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, and any local government, unit of local government, or any unit of State government.

(Pub. L. 96–440, title I, §107, Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1881.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1981, except that insofar as such provisions are applicable to a State or any governmental unit other than the United States, the section is effective one year from Oct. 13, 1980, see section 108 of Pub. L. 96–440, set out as a note under section 2000aa of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "magnetically".
### §2000d–7. Civil rights remedies equalization

#### (a) General provision

(1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794], title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.

(2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State.

#### (b) Effective date

The provisions of subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to violations that occur in whole or in part after October 21, 1986.

(Pub. L. 99–506, title X, §1003, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1845.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Education Amendments of 1972, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is Pub. L. 92–318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235. Title IX of the Act, known as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, is classified principally to chapter 38 (§1681 et seq.) of Title 20, Education. For complete classification of title IX to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1681 of Title 20 and Tables.

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is title III of Pub. L. 94–135, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 728, which is classified generally to chapter 76 (§6101 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6101 of this title and Tables.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is classified generally to this subchapter (§2000d et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, and not as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VI of which comprises this subchapter.
#### § 233.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of this Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
#### § 1423.23 Waiver of objections.

Any objection not made before an Administrative Law Judge shall be deemed waived.
#### GILLIAM v. FIRST UNION NAT. BANK

No. 93P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 416

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 April 1997.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1361] 

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: 

*Whereas,*                     the City of Memphis, Tennessee, grantee of FTZ 77, has requested authority on behalf of Sharp Manufacturing Company of America to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures (multifunction office machines and solar cell modules) at Subzone 77A at the Sharp Manufacturing Company of America plant in Shelby County, Tennessee (FTZ Docket 61-2003, filed 11/6/2003);                 

*Whereas,*                     notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (68 FR 65246, 11/19/03);                 

*Whereas,*                     the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                 

*Now, therefore,*                     the Board hereby orders:                 

The application to expand the scope of authority under zone procedures within Subzone 77A on behalf of the Sharp Manufacturing Company of America, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of December, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 04-27377 Filed 12-13-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P