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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 26, 2013

d0423 

# Order

April 26, 2013

146627

- 8(49)(52)(53)

_________________________________________

AHMED CHAKKOUR,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 146627

COA: 309854

Wayne CC: 11

- 104461

- PP

TONYA CHAKKOUR,

Respondent

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

TONYA CHAKKOUR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 146628

COA: 310006

Wayne CC: 11

- 103999

- DM

AHMED CHAKKOUR,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration of the motion for

peremptory reversal is GRANTED. The motion for reconside ration of this Court’s

March 22, 2013 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that

the order was entered erroneously. The motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED.
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |

| /s/ Deborah Meinert                        |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (On behalf of the registrant and in her    |   |
| capacities as Principal Financial Officer  |   |
| and Principal Accounting Officer)          |   |
| November 2, 2010                           |   |

----
§ 756.9 Claims by employees. ( a ) *Property.* Claims by employees of NAFIs for loss, damage, or destruction of personal property incident to their employment shall be processed and adjudicated in accordance with subparts A or B of part 751 of this chapter, as appropriate. The claims will then be forwarded to the appropriate NAFI for payment from non-appropriated funds.
( b ) *Personal injury or death* — ( 1 ) *Personal injury or death of citizens or permanent residents of the United States employed anywhere, or foreign nationals employed within the United States.* Compensation is provided by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901-950) for employees of NAFIs who have suffered injury or death arising out of, and in the course of, their employment (5 U.S.C. 8171). That Act is the exclusive basis for Government liability for such injuries or deaths that are covered (5 U.S.C. 8173). A claim should first be made under that Act if there is a substantial possibility the injury or death is covered under the Act's provisions.
( 2 ) *Personal injury or death of foreign nationals employed outside of the continental United States.* Employees who are not citizens or permanent residents, and who are employed outside the continental United States, may be protected by private insurance of the NAFI or by other arrangements. When a non-appropriated fund activity has elected not to obtain insurance coverage or to make other arrangements, compensation is separately provided by Federal statute, military regulations, and agreements with foreign countries. See 5 U.S.C. 8172, DoD 1401.1-M, Personnel Policy Manual for Non-appropriated Fund Instrumentalities and BUPERINST 5300.10A, NAF Personnel Manual.
[72 FR 53426, Sept. 19, 2007]
### §321n. Acceptance of gifts

#### (a) Authority

The Secretary may accept and use gifts of property, both real and personal, and may accept gifts of services, including from guest lecturers, for otherwise authorized activities of the Center for Domestic Preparedness that are related to efforts to prevent, prepare for, protect against, or respond to a natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made disaster, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction.

#### (b) Prohibition

The Secretary may not accept a gift under this section if the Secretary determines that the use of the property or services would compromise the integrity or appearance of integrity of—

(1) a program of the Department; or

(2) an individual involved in a program of the Department.

#### (c) Report

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an annual report disclosing—

(A) any gifts that were accepted under this section during the year covered by the report;

(B) how the gifts contribute to the mission of the Center for Domestic Preparedness; and

(C) the amount of Federal savings that were generated from the acceptance of the gifts.

#### (2) Publication

Each report required under paragraph (1) shall be made publically available.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title V, §525, as added Pub. L. 111–245, §2(a)(1), Sept. 30, 2010, 124 Stat. 2620.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         68,307
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4180955
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (83500)
<INVENTORY>                                    6872388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11667896
<PP&E>                                         3776253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1660904)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14224373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10837008
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       202390
<OTHER-SE>                                     2790083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14224373
<SALES>                                        19178787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19178787
<CGS>                                          15764330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15764330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2980604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             485101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (51248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (51248)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (51248)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)



</TABLE>
### §3129. Accountability

#### (a) Review of information technology systems

The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art information technology systems that are available for use in developing the system required by subsection (b).

#### (b) Monitoring and evaluation system

The Secretary shall develop and carry out a system to monitor and evaluate agricultural research and extension activities conducted or supported by the Department of Agriculture that will enable the Secretary to measure the impact and effectiveness of research, extension, and education programs according to priorities, goals, and mandates established by law. In developing the system, the Secretary shall incorporate information transfer technologies to optimize public access to research information.

#### (c) Consistency with other requirements

The Secretary shall develop and implement the system in a manner consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–62; 107 Stat. 285) and amendments made by the Act.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1413A, as added Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §804, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1160.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 103–62, Aug. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 285, which enacted section 306 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, sections 1115 to 1119, 9703, and 9704 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and sections 2801 to 2805 of Title 39, Postal Service, amended section 1105 of Title 31, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 1101 and 1115 of Title 31. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1993 Amendment note set out under section 1101 of Title 31 and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3129, Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1413A, as added Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §255(a), June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 707, provided for biomass energy educational and technical assistance programs, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1601(f)(1)(C), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3704.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Prote ction (DEP) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on a proposed revisi on to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain and maintain the national ambient air qualit y standards for ozone and very fine particulate matter. The SIP is the plan developed by West Virgi nia in order to fulfill its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to attain and maintai n the ambient air quality standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency (U.S. EPA). The public comment period begins April 18, 2008 and ends May 19, 2008.

In this proposed revision to the SIP, West Virginia is demonstrating compliance with specific CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements through a document affirming that the State meets these express requirements through authorities gran ted under state laws and regulations, as well as implementation of existing air programs. DEP is seeking comments on whether the document adequately demonstrates West Virginia’s compliance with the pertinent federal CAA mandates related to these so-called infrastructure elements.

Upon completion of the public notice period, and af ter addressing any written comment, the DEP will submit the final documentation to the U.S. EPA as a revision to the SIP. This proposed SIP revision is considered to be non-contr oversial in nature. Therefore, a public hearing will be held only if requested in writing, and the written request is received by May 19, 2008. Any person who requests a public hearing should ide ntify any substantive issue they intend to raise in a hearing. If properly requested, the hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on May 27, 2008 at the address below. A public notice announcing wheth er a hearing will be held will be posted in the West Virginia Register published on May 23, 2008.

Copies of the proposed CAA §110(a)(2) SIP revision may be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the DEP-Division of Air Quality, 6 01 57 thSE, Charleston, WV 25304, beginning April 18, 2008, or electronically upon e- mail request to: tmowrer@wvdep.org. The proposal may also be accessed via the following web address: www.wvdep.org/daq. Choose Public Notice and Comment.

Send written comments to be included in the formal record to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality at the above address. Pleas e identify the document to which the comments apply, the commenter’s name, address, and telephone number. Comments will also be accepted by e-mail if received by 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2008 to: tmowrer@wvdep.org. Comments submitted by U.S. Mail must be postmarked by May 19, 2008.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge George M. Marovich Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 9214 DATE 6/5/2012

CASE

TITLE

Klapper v. United Reman Group, Inc., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Status hearing held; case has settled. This case is dismissed.

Docketing to mail notices.

00:03

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

CW

Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:11-cv-09214 Document #: 22 Filed: 06/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:66
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00630

- CV

THE HUFF ENERGY FUND , L.P., WRH Energy Partners, L LC, William R. “Bill” Huff,

Rick D’Angelo, and Riley

- Huff Energy Group, LLC,

Appellants

v.

LONGVIEW ENERGY COMPANY

, Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 09

- 12583

- ZCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE THE EN BANC COURT

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that Longview Energy Company take nothing.

It is ORDERED that appellants The Huff Energy Fund, L.P., WRH Energy Partners, LLC,

William R. “Bill” Huff, Rick D’Angelo, and Riley

- Huff Energy Group, LLC, recover their costs

of this appeal from appellee Longview Energy Company.

The surety(ies) on ap pellants’ supersedeas bond, if any, is/are released as a matter of law.

SIGNED November 25, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Fiscal Year 2007 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2007 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1100030 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 46,025,737 9,205,147 2,356

1199998 Undistributed 0 0 0

1199999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2007 for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available

 under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
### §5115. Regulations

The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this chapter, except sections 5109 and 5114.1

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 457; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, §906(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 1072. | Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, §1101, 63 Stat. 971. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 1072a. | Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1208, §113, 68 Stat. 1108. |

Statutes at Large

Former sections 1072 and 1072a are combined and restated for clarity. The remainder of the authority is carried into sections 3324, 5338, and 7154.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 5114, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 99–386, title I, §110(a), Aug. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 822.

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted "Office of Personnel Management" for "Civil Service Commission".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15592]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7931]

The Designation of Abubakar Shekau, Also Known as Abu Mohammed 
Abubakar bin Mohammed, Also Known as Shekau, Also Known as Abu Muhammed 
Abubakar Bi Muhammed, Also Known as Shehu, Also Known as Shayku, as a 
Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Abubakar Shekau, 
also known as Abu Mohammed Abubakar Bin Mohammed, also known as Shekau, 
also known as Abu Muhammed Abubakar Bi Muhammed, also known as Shehu, 
also known as Shayku, committed, or poses a significant risk of 
committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. 
nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the 
United States.
    Consistent with the determination in Section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 18, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-15592 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-01-P
```
1The Honorable Terry I. Adelman, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3967

___________

Anthony Bell, *

*

Appellant, *

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster * District of Missouri

General, United States Postal Service *

Agency, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7, 2000

 Filed: November 15, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, 

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony E. Bell, an African-American male, appeals from the adverse grant of

summary judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri

in his employment discrimination action against the United States Postal Service
-2-

(USPS). Bell had claimed wrongful termination, retaliation, and discriminatory

treatment on the basis of race, sex, and disability. We affirm. 

Specifically, upon de novo review of the record and careful consideration of the

parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court properly dismissed Bell’s wrongfultermination claim as untimely filed from the final decision of the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB). See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) (in “mixed case,” complainant

must appeal MSPB’s decision to district court within 30 days after receiving notice of

judicially reviewable action); Austin v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 136 F.3d 782, 783

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (“mixed case” is appeal to MSPB from adverse personnel action,

coupled with allegations that action was based on prohibited discrimination); Johnson

v. United States Postal Serv., 64 F.3d 233, 238 (6th Cir. 1995) (MSPB decision

becomes judicially reviewable action on date of its issuance). 

We conclude further that the district court properly granted summary judgment

on the retaliation and discriminatory treatment claims, because (1) Bell failed to

establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether USPS’s proffered reasons for

the challenged employment decision (a suspension)--Bell’s failure to maintain a regular

work schedule and his extensive history of discipline--were pretextual; and (2) he

presented no evidence, other than temporal proximity, of a causal connection between

protected activity and the adverse employment decision. See Ghane v. West, 148 F.3d

979, 981-82 & n.3 (8th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.