alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

AMBER DUDLEY, Personal Representative of the 

ESTATE OF JAMES DUDLEY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 5, 2015 

v No. 317202 

St. Clair Circuit Court 

ST. CLAIR COUNTY OFFICE OF DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER, COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, 

TIMOTHY R. CHARRON, ROBERT WILEY, 

CHARLES WOOD, and EDWARD H. FAHLEY 

as Trustee of EDWARD H. FAHLEY TRUST, 

LC No. 12-001027-NO 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and METER and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

 I dissent as to the dismissal of the case against defendant Timothy Charron on the 

grounds of governmental immunity. I concur with the majority’s affirmance of the dismissal of 

plaintiff’s other claims on the grounds of governmental immunity. 

 Charron was the drain commission employee who supervised the tree removal operations 

in question. 

 There is extensive lay and expert evidence in the record that Charron did not give proper 

direction to the volunteer prisoner work crew in order to assure that trees could be cut down 

without causing any of the surrounding dead trees to fall and cause serious injury to one of the 

crewman. MIOSHA issued multiple citations and defendant Charron was suspended after the 

county investigated the incident. Nevertheless, were this the extent of the evidence, I would be 

inclined to agree with the majority that it was not sufficient to demonstrate “gross negligence” as 

defined in the statute providing for immunity to individual government employees. MCL 

691.1407(8)(a). 

 However, this is not the extent of the evidence. Three witnesses testified that Charron 

did not provide, or even offer, hardhats to the crew. Charron has submitted an affidavit averring 

that he did offer the crew hardhats but that they declined to use them. Thus, as to this issue, 

there is a factual question that can only be resolved by a jury after hearing the witnesses and 

judging their credibility. The record demonstrates that Charron clearly understood the 
-2- 

seriousness of the risk. He testified that he understood that the area was full of dead trees which 

he called “widow maker[s]” due to the risk that one would fall and strike or impale a crew 

member during the work. Given that knowledge, combined with the multiple other safety 

failures, I believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that the failure to provide hardhats 

demonstrated “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an 

injury results.” MCL 691.1407(8)(a). And, since plaintiff’s decedent died because he was struck 

in the head by a falling tree, a jury could also find that the failure to provide him with a hard hat 

was “the proximate cause of the injury.” MCL 691.1407(2)(c). 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
#### 1328.101 Bid guarantees.
#### 1346.401 General.

Agency procedures for documenting government inspection are set forth under Subpart 1346.6.
### §6902. Definitions

Except where the context requires otherwise, for purposes of this chapter:

#### (1) Department

The term "Department" means the Department of Agriculture.

#### (2) National Appeals Division

The term "National Appeals Division" means the National Appeals Division of the Department established under section 6992 of this title.

#### (3) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture.

#### (4) Function

The term "function" means an administrative, financial, or regulatory activity of an agency, office, officer, or employee of the Department.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §203, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3209.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 103–354, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3209, known as the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6901 of this title and Tables.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERICK EDOUARD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2086

[February 1, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Scherer, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 04-009461CF10A. 

Erick Edouard, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
J. 

J. 

45 (1995); Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge 

Ronald Davis 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County District Attorney 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2
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.

March 3, 2020

s0224 

# Order

Clerk March 3, 2020

159694

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159694

COA: 340802

Macomb CC: 2015

- 001079

- FH

JOHN PATRICK CAFARELLI,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A pril 18, 2019

judgment 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.
### **CHAPTER 62—BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION**

Sec.
2901.
Congressional findings and declaration of policy.
2902.
Definitions.
2903.
Issuance of orders.
2904.
Required terms in orders.
2905.
Certification of organizations to nominate.
2906.
Requirement of referendum.
2907.
Refunds.
2908.
Enforcement.
2909.
Investigations by Secretary; oaths and affirmations; subpenas; judicial enforcement; contempt proceedings; service of process.
2910.
Preemption of other Federal and State programs; applicability of provisions to amendments to orders.
2911.
Authorization of appropriations.
2912 to 2918. Omitted.
#### Miko Brothers, Inc. *v.*John Lucas

*J. Roger Shull,*in support.of the motion.

Submitted October 10

decided October 24, 1974

The plaintiff’s “Motion for Waiver of Rule § 716” in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



               Certification of Periodic Financial Report by
         Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, DeWitt Drew, President and Chief Executive Officer of Southwest Georgia
Financial Corporation certify that:

  (1)  The Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period
       ended December 31, 2009 (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 present, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
       Corporation.



                                 By:   /s/DeWitt Drew
                                       DeWitt Drew
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       Southwest Georgia Financial Corporation
March 31, 2010
#### In the Matter of Austin F. Hasselberg, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Proceeding dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation.
D:\netsite-docs\lps100554\designation-handbook.pdf
**Exhibit 31.2**
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert P. Capps, certify that:
(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of TeraForce TechnologyCorporation; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 30, 2004     /s/ ROBERT P. CAPPS   Robert P. Capps Chief Financial Officer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Chiang, Amy" [Amy.Chiang@Honeywell.com]

Sent: 05/25/2010 11:54 AM MST

To: Tom Land; <mcclean.brian@epa.gov>; Drusilla Hufford; Cindy Newberg

Subject: Apollo Announcement

Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you didn't see it... 

Honeywell will begin supplying commercial quantities of a new

refrigerant - HFO-1234yf - in the fourth quarter of 2011.

SUMMARY ON RELEASE:

Honeywell and DuPont announced a manufacturing joint venture to produce

the HFO-1234yf refrigerant for use in automotive air conditioning

systems. The new refrigerant has a lower global warming potential (GWP)

of 4. 

Honeywell and DuPont introduced HFO-1234yf to the automotive industry in

2007, and since then, it has undergone extensive testing for safety and

efficacy by independent testing groups such as the Society of Automotive

Engineers International Cooperative Research Program, in which leading

automobile manufacturers participated. 

Attached please find a copy of the press release outlining the

manufacturing joint venture.
#### § 935.104 Sentence after a plea of guilty.

If the Court accepts a plea of guilty to any charge or charges, it shall make a finding of guilty on that charge. Before imposing sentence, the Court shall hear such statements for the prosecution and defense, if any, as it requires to enable it to determine the sentence to be imposed. The accused or his counsel may make any reasonable statement he wishes in mitigation or of previous good character. The prosecution may introduce evidence in aggravation, or of bad character if the accused has introduced evidence of good character. The Court shall then impose any lawful sentence that it considers proper.
### SUBCHAPTER II—COLLEGE-AID ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
#### Mount Vernon Housing Authority, Respondent, v. American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Robert Ramsey et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

In an action to recover upon a faithful performance bond issued to plaintiff by the defendant American Motorists Insurance Company, the latter appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 6, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a preference in trial of the action, pursuant to the statute (CPLR 3403, subd. [a], par. 1) which authorizes a preference when an action is brought “by *' * a the state, or a political subdivision of the state”. Order reversed, without costs, and motion for preference denied. In our opinion, the plaintiff Mount Vernon Housing Authority is neither a State agency *(Ciulla*v. *State of New York,*191 Misc. 528) nor a political subdivision of the State (ef. Executive Law, § 10, subd. 1, par. e; General Municipal Law, § 100; § 60, subd. 2, par. b; Unconsolidated Laws, § 9103), so as to entitle it to a preference as a matter of right under the present statute (CPLR 3403, subd. [a], par. 1). Plaintiff does not claim a preference under any other subdivision of said CPLR 3403. Beldoek, P. J., Úghetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### 1370.101 Period of performance.

Insert the clause 1352.270-70, *Period of Performance,* in all solicitations and contracts where a period of performance will be specified.
Appeal No. 74-219.

#### Saints Sahag & Mesrob Armenian Church *v.*State.

*John K. Najarian,*for plaintiff. *Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Stephen F. Mullen,*Office of Special Counsel, for defendant.

Motion of plaintiff to extend the time for filing its brief to June 14, 1975 is granted.
#### § 776.87 Finality.

Any action taken by the JAG is final.
§ 536.62 Action memorandums. ( a ) *When required.* ( 1 ) All claims will be acted on prior to being closed except for those that are transferred. For claims on which suit is filed before final action, see § 536.66. A settlement authority may deny or pay in full or in part any claim in a stated amount within his or her delegated authority. An approval authority may pay in full or in part, but may not deny, a claim in a stated amount within his or her delegated authority. If any one claim arising out of the same incident exceeds a settlement or approval authority's monetary jurisdiction, all claims from that incident will be forwarded to the authority having jurisdiction.
( 2 ) In any claim which must be supported by an expert opinion as to duty, negligence, causation or damages, an expert opinion must be submitted upon request. All opinions must meet the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
( 3 ) An action memorandum is required for all final actions regardless of whether payment is made electronically. The memorandum will contain a sufficient rendition of the facts, law or damages to justify the action being taken. (A model action is posted on the USARCS Web site; for the address see § 536.2(a).)
( b ) *Memorandum of Opinion.* Upon completion of the investigation, the ACO or CPO will prepare a memorandum of opinion in the format prescribed at DA Pam 27-162, when a claim is forwarded to USARCS for action. This requirement can be waived by the USARCS AAO.
( c ) *Claim brought by a claims authority or superior.* A claim filed by an approval or settlement authority or his or her superior officer in the chain of command or a family member of either will be investigated and forwarded for final action, without recommendation, to the next higher settlement authority (in an overseas area, this includes a command claims service) or to USARCS.
Note to § 536.62 :
For further discussion see DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-72.
#### Robert Warner, Appellant, v. Laurence Kenan, Respondent. Romie Days, Appellant, v. Laurence Kenan, Respondent.

Motions of plaintiffs granted to extent of modifying orders of this court dated June 29,1960 to provide *728that typewritten records and briefs shall be filed and served on or before January 20, 1961. Cross motions by defendant denied. Memorandum: It appears from the affidavits of plaintiffs’ attorney that the motion made at Special Term pursuant to section 1493 of the Civil Practice Act was denied upon the ground that prior order of this court had directed that all papers be filed on or before August 10, 1960. The plaintiffs are relieved of this stricture so that the motion may be renewed before Special Term and decided upon the merits. We, of course, express no opinion upon the merits of such an application.
#### 1235.070-1 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1252.235-70, Research Misconduct, in all solicitations and contracts for research and development.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 / h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 3 .0 $ 255.00 $ 

### 0 $ 255.00 

### 838 $ 213,690.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in complia nce: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 213,690 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Corrective Action 4

. 

### 0 $ 340.00 $ 

### 0 $ 340.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to e xplain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:**
Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requi rements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
OFFICEOFTHE ATTORNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable W. P. Herme, Jr. county Auditor Wallor County Bempetead, Texas Dear Sir: 011edper

Your **raquest** ror carsfully considered by th request as followst s been received **and** Wequote irom your



### ortax sal ounty to purcheso pe of services above per which is ownedby
0**your** qua&ion wecall attention to ArAnnotated **Civil Statutes,**  which provides: entering upon the dutiss of their county judge andeuch commissioner shell t&e the official oath and shall **take a**  written oeth that hewill not **be** aireOtly nor ‘indirectly interi:etod in any contraot with, or claim ageinst. tha county in which he L’(lStBeS, except such warrants as mayissue to himas 

### fees of offios." (Ejmphasisours)Honorable W.P. Herme, Jr., paga 2

Furthermore wecall your attention to Article 373, penal Codeof Texae, which reads a8 follows:

*Xi any officer of any county, or of any oity or town shall become in anymannerpecuniarily interested in any contraots madeby such oounty, city or town, through its agents, or otherwise, for the construction or repair of any bridge, road, street, alley or houee or any other work undertaken by such county, city or town, or shall becomeinterested In any bid or proposal for such work or in the purchase or sale of/anything made for or on acoount of suoh county, city or town, or whoshall contract for or receive anymoney or property, or the representative of either, or any emolument or advantage whatsoever in considoretion of such bid, proposal, contraat, purohaso or sale he shall be fined not lees than Fifty (‘50,OOf Dell e ars andnot more than yive Hundred (~500.00) Dol1ars.v In view of the foregoing authorities, it ,lir~our opinion that it is not legal for the County to purchas8 either. supplies or the type of service mentioned in your letter from a newspaper which is ownedby the County Judge.

JOH:ir Very truly your8 ATT0i-l GE

fiB Assistant
#### George H. Davis, Plaintiff, v. Baird Hodgkinson et al., Defendants. James P. McPhilomy, Plaintiff, v. Baird Hodgkinson et al., Defendants. Lester Kessler, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. Baird W. Hodgkinson, Respondent.

Pursuant to stipulation, order entered September 19, 1960, dismissing appeal, vacated. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.