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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 

December 9, 2020

Order 

Clerk

December 9, 2020

162286(27)

ANGELIC JOHNSON, and LINDA LEE 

TARVER, 

Petitioners, 

V SC: 162286 

SECRETARY OF STATE, CHAIRPERSON 

OF THE BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, 

BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, and 

GOVERNOR, 

Respondents.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorney William B. Stafford to appear and practice in this case under MCR 8.126(A) 

is DENIED as moot.
#### Seymour Cohen et al., Appellants, v Edward Margolin, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 7, 1978, which is in favor of defendant Margolin and against them, upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. A jury verdict in favor of a defendant may be set aside when it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence (cf. *Busby v Malone,*54 AD2d 572). In our view, the evidence is so overwhelmingly in plaintiffs’ favor that the verdict must be set aside. On the record presented it seems indisputable that the plaintiff husband’s injuries resulted from the respondent’s moving the golf cart without checking to see whether the plaintiff husband was seated. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
### §4909. Petition and review

(a) Any person subject to a plan may file a written petition with the Secretary, stating that the plan or any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection therewith, is not in accordance with law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted therefrom. The person shall be given an opportunity for a hearing on the petition, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. After the hearing, the Secretary shall make a ruling on the petition, which shall be final if in accordance with the law.

(b) The district courts of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or in which the person's principal place of business is located, are hereby vested with jurisdiction to review such ruling, provided that a complaint for that purpose is filed within twenty days from the date of the entry of the ruling. Service of process in such proceedings may be had on the Secretary by delivering to the Secretary a copy of the complaint. If the court determines that the ruling is not in accordance with law, it shall remand the proceedings to the Secretary with directions either to (1) make such ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law, or (2) take such further proceedings as, in its opinion, the law requires. The pendency of proceedings instituted under subsection (a) shall not impede or delay the United States or the Secretary from obtaining relief under section 4910(a) 1 of this title.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1650, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1627.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4910(a) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "section 1851(a)", a nonexistent section in Pub. L. 99–198, and has been translated as if the reference had been to "section 1651(a)" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1 See References in Text note below.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 1072 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 164 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2012 - 0188 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10926 Conference Calendar
FREDERICK DEWAYNE MALONE Plaintiff-Appellant
v. DR ALAN BYRD Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CV-488 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Frederick Dewayne Malone, Texas prisoner # 0699305, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Malone argues that the defendant demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs because the defendant treated his skin condition with only a shot and one bar of soap. Malone alleges that he should have also received lotion and dandruff shampoo. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10926

2 Malone fails to allege facts to support a claim ofdeliberate indifference to a serious medical need as is required in order to proceed under the Eighth Amendment and § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Malone’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, it is dismissed as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR
. R . 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Malone’s complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal ofMalone’sappeal count as two strikes for purposes of28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). SeeAdepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Malone is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allow ed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
### §3125a–1. Agricultural and food law research, legal tools, and information

#### (a) Partnerships

The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the National Agricultural Library, shall support the dissemination of objective, scholarly, and authoritative agricultural and food law research, legal tools, and information by entering into cooperative agreements with institutions of higher education (as defined in section 1001 of title 20) that on February 7, 2014, are carrying out objective programs for research, legal tools, and information in agricultural and food law.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 113–79, title VII, §7603, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 911.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Agricultural Act of 2014, and not as part of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 which comprises this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                 5

<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
          the Partnership's audited financial statements for the year ended
          September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
          such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                    514
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          538
<PP&E>                                  5,038
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          3,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,382
<BONDS>                                   755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              1,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            3,779
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          618
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (506)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (506)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (23.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (23.24)


</TABLE>
#### Paul Martin et al. *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westport

*Stanley P. Atwood,*in support of the petition.

*Frederick A. Freedman,*in opposition.

Submitted July 22

decided July 30, 1974

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Pair-field County is denied.
#### William R. Springborn, Respondent, v. George Gottler, Defendant, and Donald A. Staerker, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal by defendant Staerker from judgment of Erie Trial Term for *724plaintiff against said defendant, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §596. Refusal of certificates for violations of law; penalties for violations

After opportunity for hearing the Secretary is authorized to refuse the issuance of certificates under this chapter for periods not exceeding ninety days to any person who ships or offers for shipment any grapes or plums in foreign commerce in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person or any common carrier or any transportation agency violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 86–687, §6, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 734.)
```

[110th Congress Public Law 276]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ276.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 2598]]

Public Law 110-276
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
   Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
 Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''. <<NOTE: July 15, 
                         2008 -  [H.R. 1019]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez 
Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States customhouse building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

    Approved July 15, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1019:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-70 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 153 (2007):
                                    Mar. 26, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 154 (2008):
                                    June 24, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Case: 1:12-cv-00946 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00946 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-00946 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-00946 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-00946 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00946 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 730 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 101
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 730

                          [Report No. 115-82]

  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
                        hydroelectric projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2017

   Mr. Kaine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                              May 24, 2017

              Reported by Ms. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
                        hydroelectric projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CERTAIN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred 
to in this section as the ``Commission'') projects numbered 12737 and 
12740, the Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 
applicable project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the 
good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that 
section and the procedures of the Commission under that section, extend 
the time period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
construction of the applicable project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year 
periods from the date of the expiration of the extension originally 
issued by the Commission.
    (b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of a project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of enactment of this Act--
            (1) the Commission may reinstate the license for the 
        applicable project effective as of the date of the expiration 
        of the license; and
            (2) the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
        shall take effect on that expiration.
                                                       Calendar No. 101

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 730

                          [Report No. 115-82]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
                        hydroelectric projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 24, 2017

                       Reported without amendment
```
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2015 -**  **082 2**
### §4915. Separability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this chapter and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1656, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1630.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             991
<SECURITIES>                                       681
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                       870
<INVENTORY>                                      6,854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,413
<PP&E>                                          10,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,852
<BONDS>                                         14,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         44
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,082
<SALES>                                         19,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,341
<CGS>                                           18,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,385)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        46
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (403)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,138)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.78)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered January 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00716-CV

JOSE SYLVESTERE LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

CLAUDIA LOPEZ, Appellee

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-05531-S

ORDER

The cause in this case is being submitted on briefs. No oral argument is scheduled. 

Accordingly, Jose Sylvestere Lopez’s motion for bench warrant so he can appear at oral 

argument is DENIED.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11304]

Based upon a review of the administrative record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I have concluded that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that ISIL Sinai Province, uses the additional aliases ISIS-Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham—Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham—Sinai Province, ISIS-SP, and Wilayat Sayna.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, I hereby amend the designation of ISIL Sinai Province as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist to include the following new aliases: ISIS-Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham—Sinai Province, Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham—Sinai Province, ISIS-SP, and Wilayat Sayna.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 22, 2020.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00607 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
LifetimeSURVIVAL FUNCTION OF CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERSLifetime Distribution 18.4 yearsAverage Life 18.4 yearsFraction FractionAge Retired Surv0 0.000 1.0001 0.002 0.9982 0.002 0.9963 0.002 0.9944 0.002 0.9925 0.002 0.9906 0.002 0.9887 0.001 0.9878 0.012 0.9769 0.019 0.95610 0.026 0.93011 0.033 0.89712 0.039 0.85813 0.043 0.81514 0.046 0.76915 0.049 0.72016 0.051 0.66917 0.053 0.61618 0.056 0.56019 0.060 0.50020 0.067 0.43321 0.078 0.35522 0.093 0.26223 0.116 0.14624 0.146 0.000Source:M.E. Bucher, C.M. Grastataro, W.R. Coleman. 1990. "Heat Pump Life and Compressor Longevity in Diverse Climates." ASHRAE Transactions. AT-90-29-3.Survival Function of Central A/C0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 5 10 15 20 25Age (year)

% SurvivingPage 1