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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 November 20, 2012

h1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145712

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145712

COA: 308312

Oakland CC: 2010

- 232720

- FC

GREGORY DELMARK GOODEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2012 order

of the Court of Appe als is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### §6952. Multiagency task force

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall establish, in the office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, a multiagency task force for the purpose of providing coordination and direction for commodity programs.

#### (b) Composition

The Task Force shall be composed of at least 4 members, including—

(1) a representative from the Food Distribution Division of the Food and Nutrition Service, who shall—

(A) be appointed by the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services; and

(B) serve as Chairperson of the Task Force;

(2) at least 1 representative from the Agricultural Marketing Service, who shall be appointed by the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs;

(3) at least 1 representative from the Farm Services Agency, who shall be appointed by the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation; and

(4) at least 1 representative from the Food Safety and Inspection Service, who shall be appointed by the Under Secretary for Food Safety.

#### (c) Duties

#### (1) In general

The Task Force shall be responsible for evaluation and monitoring of the commodity programs to ensure that the commodity programs meet the mission of the Department—

(A) to support the United States farm sector; and

(B) to contribute to the health and well-being of individuals in the United States through the distribution of domestic agricultural products through commodity programs.

#### (2) Specific duties

In carrying out paragraph (1), the Task Force shall—

(A) review and make recommendations regarding the specifications used for the procurement of food commodities;

(B) review and make recommendations regarding the efficient and effective distribution of food commodities; and

(C) review and make recommendations regarding the degree to which the quantity, quality, and specifications of procured food commodities align the needs of producers and the preferences of recipient agencies.

#### (d) Reports

Not later than 1 year after February 7, 2014, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes, for the period covered by the report—

(1) the findings and recommendations of the Task Force; and

(2) policies implemented for the improvement of commodity procurement programs.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §242, as added Pub. L. 113–79, title IV, §4205, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 823; amended Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12405(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4975.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 115–334 substituted "Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation" for "Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services".
### §6703. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §868, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1175

Section, Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIV, §2404, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4060, required Secretary of Agriculture to establish technical advisory committee to provide advice to Secretary concerning major study areas required under this chapter.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FRp^ppy^QE CRItylJNAL, APP.E'AL§.QF TEXAS

p.o.Bb^niosfGX^F^^sn^^oN.kt^s^^.T-E^AS^'s-vir—'

BUSINESS

•STATE OF TEX^"'*"'

PENALTY FOR:

PRIVATE USE''-'

MTNEV BOWES

3/9/2015

GATSON, TIMOTHY MICHAEL . Tr: Q£

On this day, the application for>11?0^Writ,,of habeas Corpus has been received

and presented to the Court. ''^^^S£/fi:'

Abel Acosta, Clerk

02 1R 3

0006557458 MAR13 2015

3 296iV)(A))M 2ipVyJiT82j985-01

TIMOTHY MICHAEL GATSON

-TDC# 1084238

$

£

8«
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation,

et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−09308

Honorable James F.

Holderman

JW Marriott Chicago, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, March 5, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: Defendants' agreed motion

for extension of time to answer the complaint [40] is granted; defendants are given until

3/26/2012 to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint (11 C 6478). Defendants'

unopposed motion for extension of time to answer [41] is granted; defendants are given

until 3/12/2012 to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint (11 C 6478). Mailed notice

(am)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 45 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:755
1.704 Content. Each D&F shall set forth enough facts and circumstances to clearly and convincingly justify the specific determination made. As a minimum, each D&F shall include, in the prescribed agency format, the following information: ( a ) Identification of the agency and of the contracting activity and specific identifications of the document as a *Determination and Findings.*
( b ) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.
( c ) Citation of the appropriate statute and/or regulation upon which the D&F is based.
( d ) Findings that detail the particular circumstances, facts, or reasoning essential to support the determination. Necessary supporting documentation shall be obtained from appropriate requirements and technical personnel.
( e ) A determination, based on the findings, that the proposed action is justified under the applicable statute or regulation.
( f ) Expiration date of the D&F, if required (see 1.706(b)).
( g ) The signature of the official authorized to sign the D&F (see 1.706) and the date signed.
No. 8191.

#### Raymer *v.*Gendron.

(Decided January 12, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. O. S. Brumback*and *Mr. G. A. Thatcher,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Smith & Baker,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Crew, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00629 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/30/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
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

ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ MARTINEZ;

et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70031

Agency Nos. A029-285-845

 A099-067-894

 A099-067-895

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Alejandro Martinez Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, and his family,

natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is

FILED

FEB 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70031

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges to

removal orders, Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008),

and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Petitioners’ due process argument regarding an alleged gap in the transcript

fails because they have not demonstrated prejudice. See Colmenar v. INS, 210

F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (prejudice is required for a due process violation). 

Petitioners’ argument that the IJ violated due process by failing to conduct a “de

novo” evidentiary hearing is also unpersuasive because petitioners have not

demonstrated that they were entitled to such a hearing or that any additional

evidence would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary weighing of the

evidence in support of the petitioners’ cancellation of removal application. See

Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the

“misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).

Petitioners’ claim of agency bias is not supported by the record. Petitioners’

contention that the IJ made an ad hoc adverse credibility determination is not

supported by the record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit 31.1**Certification****Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002**I, Adrian Ma, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emerson Radio Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit
28

 
   committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date:  August 14, 2007/s/  Adrian Ma  Adrian Ma
No. 712.

#### Western Union Telegraph Company *v.*Addie Speight.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. Francis Raymond Stark, Mr. Charles W. Tillett*and *Mr. Thomas C. Guthrie*for petitioner.

*Mr. Murray Allen*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of .certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina granted.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09886**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  09886\09886_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09886\09886_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09886\09886_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09886\09886_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09886\09886_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09886\09886_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09886\09886_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 09886\Supporting Documents\09886_2009 MPU Annual Report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09886\Supporting Documents\09886_2009 PSCW annual report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09886\Supporting Documents\09886_ASH HANDLING SPEC for B9.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09886\Supporting Documents\09886_B9 ash system schematics.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09886\Supporting Documents\09886_EPA WATER FLOW DIAGRAM MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09886\Supporting Documents\09886_MPU SITE PLAN MAP-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09886\Supporting Documents\09886_Topographic Map MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09886\09886_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09886\09886_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 767.11 Content of permit holder's final report. The permit holder's final report shall at minimum include the following: ( a ) A wrecksite history and a contextual history relating the wrecksite to the general history of the region;
( b ) A master wrecksite map;
( c ) Feature map(s) of any recovered artifacts showing their positions within the wrecksite;
( d ) Where environmental conditions allow, photographs of significant wrecksite features and significant artifacts both in situ and after removal;
( e ) If applicable, a section that includes an inventory of recovered artifacts, description of conserved artifacts, laboratory conservation records, documentation of analyses undertaken, photographs of recovered artifacts before and after conservation treatment, and recommended curation conditions;
( f ) A written report describing the wrecksite's discovery, environment, past and current archaeological fieldwork, results, and analysis;
( g ) A summary of the survey and/or excavation process including methods and techniques employed, an account of operational phases, copies of applicable logs, as well as thorough analysis of the recovered data;
( h ) An evaluation of the completed permitted activity that includes an assessment of the project's degree of success compared to the goals specified in the permit application;
( i ) Recommendations for future activities, if applicable;
( j ) An account of how the public interpretation or dissemination plan described in the permit application has been or is being carried out. Additionally, identification of any sensitive information as detailed in § 767.9(g).
§ 536.38 Elements of the investigation. ( a ) The investigation is conducted to ascertain the facts of an incident. Which facts are relevant often depends on the law and regulations applicable to the conduct of the parties involved but generally the investigation should develop definitive answers to such questions as “When?” “Where?” “Who?” “What?” and “How?”. Typically, the time, place, persons, and circumstances involved in an incident may be established by a simple report, but its cause and the resulting damage may require extensive effort to obtain all the pertinent facts.
( b ) The object of the investigation is to gather, with the least possible delay, the best available evidence without accumulating excessive evidence concerning any particular fact. The claimant is often an excellent source of such information and should be contacted early in the investigation, particularly when there is a question as to whether the claim was timely filed.
Exhibit
      10.32

    


    Summary
      of terms and conditions of Consulting Agreement by and between XL Generation
      AG
      and Greendale Consulting Limited

    


    


    In
      April
      of 2005, XL Generation AG, a wholly owned subsidiary of XL Generation
      International Inc. (the “Corporation”) entered into a verbal agreement with
      Greendale Consulting Limited (the “Greendale Agreement”), pursuant to which
      Greendale Consulting Limited agreed to provide financial and commercial
      consulting and support services (the “Services”) to XL Generation AG. It was
      agreed that Greendale Consulting Limited would provide the Services on a
      month-to-month basis at a monthly fee equal to a pro-rata portion of an annual
      fee of GBP 80,000 (which is equal to approximately $11,638 per month as of
      March
      31, 2006).

    


    Greendale
      Consulting Limited is 90% owned by Mr. Flemming Munck, a member of the
      Corporation’s Board of Directors, as well as the Corporation’s CFO and
      Treasurer. The Corporation’s Board of Directors, acting with Mr. Munck
      abstaining, has ratified the Greendale Agreement. The Corporation and Greendale
      Consulting Limited continued the Greendale Agreement on a month-to-month basis
      until March 30, 2006, at which time Mr. Munck entered into an employment
      agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with the Corporation. As permitted by the
      Employment Agreement, a portion of Mr. Munck’s current salary is currently being
      paid to Greendale Consulting Limited. 

    


    #   #   #
#### 1239.7400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies for records management requirements for contractors who create, work with, or otherwise handle Federal records, regardless of the medium in which the records exist.
#### In the Matter of Seledonio Soto, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court, Bronx County, et al., Respondents.

Application for a writ of prohibition against the District Attorney of Bronx County denied and petition dismissed, without costs (CPLR 7801, subd. 1; *People ex rel. Kern*v. *Silberglitt,*4 N Y 2d 59). Ho service of the petition having been made on the Supreme Court, Bronx County, the petition as against it is dismissed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
§ 93.6 Fees. Consistent with the guidelines in § 93.1(e), NSA may charge reasonable fees to parties seeking, by request or demand, official information not otherwise available under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Such fees are calculated to reimburse the Government for the expense of providing such information, and may include: ( a ) The costs of time expended by NSA employees to process and respond to the request or demand;
( b ) Attorney time for reviewing the request or demand and any information located in response thereto, and for related legal work in connection with the request or demand; and
( c ) Expenses generated by materials and equipment used to search for, produce, and copy the responsive information.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000033015
<NAME> ENSERCH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  366,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,045
<INVENTORY>                                     93,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               881,867
<PP&E>                                       1,221,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,074,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          862,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     75,000
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     778,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   778,040
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,018,978
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  970,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,484
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,484
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>