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Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 5, 2015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 E DWARD H. FAHLEY
as Trustee of EDWARD H. FAHLEY TRUST, LC No. 12-001027-NO

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: C AVANAGH , P.J., and M ETER and S HAPIRO , JJ.

S HAPIRO
, J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

I dissent as to the dismissal of the case against defendant Ti mothy 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 immunit y.

Charron was the drain commission employee who supervised the t ree removal operations in question.

There is extensive lay and expert evidence in the record that Charron did not give proper direction to the volunteer priso ner work crew in order to assur e that trees could be cut down without causing any of the surr ounding dead trees to fall and c ause serious injury to one of the crewman. MIOSHA issued multiple citations and defendant Charro n 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 gov ernment employees. MCL 691.1407(8)(a).

However, this is not the extent of the evidence. Three witnes ses 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 u se 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 r ecord demonstrates that Charro n 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 th e 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 substanti al lack of concern for whether an injury results.” MCL 691.1407(8)(a). And, since plaintiff’s d ecedent 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 t he injury.” MCL 691.1407(2)(c).

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Allison Bristol, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Madison County, denying appellant’s motion in the nature of a writ of error *eoram nobis.*On April 29, 1960 appellant plead guilty to burglary, third degree. An information was thereupon filed charging appellant with being a second felony offender, and appellant also plead guilty to this charge. Appellant urges that his conviction be set aside because the trial court prior to taking his plea of guilty to the burglary charge did not comply with section 335-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There appears no question that section 335-b was not complied with or that the failure to comply therewith was a matter of substance and was error *(People*v. *Schulman,*13 A D 2d 441). Nevertheless, this error appears on the face of the record and could properly have been raised by other adequate remedies *(People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196). We do not find that defendant has here been deprived of fundamental rights as would warrant relief by way of *coram nobis (cl. People*v. *Silverman,*3 N Y 2d 200). Order unanimously affirmed. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage, Inc., formerly Storage
Equities, Inc., pertaining to the 1990 Stock Option Plan, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-55541) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-13463) pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option and Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-75327) pertaining to the 1994 Share Incentive Plan, the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50270) pertaining to the PS 401(k)/Profit Sharing
Plan, the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-52400) pertaining to the
2000 Non-Executive/Non-Director Stock Option and Incentive Plan, the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-81041) and in the related prospectus
and the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86899) ) and in the related
prospectus and the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-84126) and in the
related prospectus of our report dated February 22, 2002 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Public Storage, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 2001 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

July 11, 2002
Los Angeles, California
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10048

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TIMOTHY GEURIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-95-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Timothy Geurin presents

arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Brown, 920

F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir. 1991), abrogated on other grounds by United States

v. Candia, 454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006), which held that a district court

may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state

sentence. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-10048 Document: 00511205901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
19.805-1 General. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an acquisition offered to the SBA under the 8(a) program shall be awarded on the basis of competition limited to eligible 8(a) participants when— ( 1 ) There is a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) participants will submit offers and that award can be made at a fair market price; and
( 2 ) The anticipated total value of the contract, including options, will exceed $7 million for acquisitions assigned manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and $4.5 million for all other acquisitions.
( b ) Where an acquisition exceeds the competitive threshold (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section), the SBA may accept the requirement for a sole source 8(a) award if— ( 1 ) There is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) participants will submit offers at a fair market price; or
( 2 ) SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of a concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation.
( c ) A proposed 8(a) requirement with an estimated value exceeding the applicable competitive threshold amount shall not be divided into several requirements for lesser amounts in order to use 8(a) sole source procedures for award to a single firm.
( d ) The SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development may approve a contracting office's request for a competitive 8(a) award below the competitive thresholds. Such requests will be approved only on a limited basis and will be primarily granted where technical competitions are appropriate or where a large number of responsible 8(a) participants are available for competition. In determining whether a request to compete below the threshold will be approved, the SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development will, in part, consider the extent to which the contracting activity is supporting the 8(a) program on a noncompetitive basis. The agency may include recommendations for competition below the threshold in the offering letter or by separate correspondence to the SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development.
[54 FR 46005, Oct. 31, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 67421, Dec. 20, 1996; 64 FR 32744, June 17, 1999; 65 FR 46056, July 26, 2000; 68 FR 4051, Jan. 27, 2003; 69 FR 8314, Feb. 23, 2004; 71 FR 57367, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010; 75 FR 77730, Dec. 13, 2010; 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 82 FR 4729, Jan. 13, 2017; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020; 86 FR 61041, Nov. 4, 2021]
**Issue Paper 7**

**Session 3: March 16-18, 2016**

**Issue:**Revise the Direct Consolidation Loan regulations to allow for the consolidation of Nurse Faculty Loans. 

**Statutory cite:**§§428C(a)(4)(E) and 455(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended 

**Regulatory cite:**34 CFR 685.220(b)(21)

**Summary of change:**

The change would revise 34 CFR 685.221(b)(21) to reflect the statutory language in section 428(C)(a)(4)(E) of the HEA, which provides that loans made under “part E of title VIII of the Public Health Service Act [42 USC 297a et seq.]” may be consolidated into a Direct Consolidation Loan. Loans made under part E of title VIII of the Public Health Service Act include both Nursing Student Loans and Nurse Faculty Loans.

**Changes:** See regulatory text below.

**§685.220 Consolidation.**

(a) * * *

(b) *Loans eligible for consolidation.* The following loans may be consolidated into a Direct Consolidation Loan:

*  *  *

(21) Nursing loans made under part E of title VIII of the Public Health Service Act.

*  *  *
#### § 845.5 Provision of bail in criminal cases.

Funds for the posting of bail or bond to secure the release of personnel from confinement by foreign authorities before, during, or after trial may be furnished in all criminal cases. Safeguards should be imposed to assure that at the conclusion of the proceedings or on the appearance of the defendant in court, the bail or bond will be refunded to the military authorities. Bail will be provided only to guarantee the presence of the defendant and will not be provided to guarantee the payment of fines or civil damages. Local US military authorities are expected to provide bail, in any case, only after other reasonable efforts have been made to secure release of pretrial custody to the US.
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2019, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |

|                              |
|------------------------------|
|                              |  |  |
|                         |   |   |
| Date:  February 4, 2020 | By: | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl |
|                         |   | Bowen S. Diehl |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### 1815.7003 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert a clause substantially the same as the one at 1852.215-84, Ombudsman, in all solicitations (including draft solicitations) and contracts.

[88 FR 80639, Nov. 20, 2023]
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

**BNSF      Railway Company**

| (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       /s/  Matthew K. Rose             |   |                   /s/  Thomas N.                Hund           |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| **Matthew                K. Rose**                                                                                                                         |   | **Thomas                N. Hund**                                                                                                    |   |
| **Chairman,                President and Chief Executive Officer**                                                                                         |   | **Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**                                                              |   |

FORM          10-Q

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
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 has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 September 7, 2005
    
    
    
    /s/ Marla L. SchaeferMarla L. SchaeferCo-Chief Executive Officer
#### 1901.104-2 Arrangement of regulations.

The IAAR uses the same numbering system and arrangement used in the FAR. Where the IAAR implements the FAR, it is numbered and captioned to correspond to the FAR. Where there is no corresponding material in the FAR, numbers beginning with 70 or higher are assigned to the IAAR supplementing part. Where the subject matter is the FAR requires no implementation, the IAAR contains no corresponding part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANKLIN LUTHER JACKSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 286 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of September, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Rafael Pagan, Respondent, v Reynaldo C. Linares, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 21, 1978, affirmed, with costs (see *Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361; *Gerard v Inglese,*11 AD2d 381). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
#### 1801.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth general information about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Supplement, also referred to as the NFS.
#### 209.505 General rules.
203.1004 Contract clauses. ( a ) Use the clause at 252.203-7003, Agency Office of the Inspector General, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that include the FAR clause 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.
( b ) ( 2 ) ( ii ) Unless the contract is for the acquisition of a commercial product or commercial service, use the clause at 252.203-7004, Display of Hotline Posters, in lieu of the clause at FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), in solicitations and contracts, if the contract value exceeds $6 million. If the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides disaster relief funds for the contract, DHS will provide information on how to obtain and display the DHS fraud hotline poster (see FAR 3.1003).
[73 FR 46815, Aug. 12, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 53413, Oct. 19, 2009; 75 FR 59101, Sept. 27, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 32840, June 6, 2011; 76 FR 57674, Sept. 16, 2011; 78 FR 37983, June 25, 2013; 80 FR 5000, Jan. 29, 2015; 80 FR 36904, June 26, 2015; 85 FR 61504, Sept. 29, 2020; 88 FR 6580, Jan. 31, 2023]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 11



<TABLE>
                                           BRUSH WELLMAN INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                            COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<CAPTION>

                                             THIRD QUARTER ENDED                     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      -----------------------------------    -----------------------------------
                                       September 27       September 29        September 27       September 29
                                           1996               1995                1996               1995
<S>                                       <C>                 <C>                <C>                 <C>       
Primary:
  Average shares outstanding              15,879,424          16,234,035         15,901,463          16,193,815

  Dillutive stock options based
       on the treasury stock method
       using average market price            196,286             284,097            183,607             225,276
                                      ---------------    ----------------    ---------------    ----------------

                         TOTALS           16,075,710          16,518,132         16,085,070          16,419,091
                                      ===============    ================    ===============    ================

  Net Income                              $4,565,000          $3,332,000        $17,864,000         $16,797,000

  Per share amount                             $0.28               $0.20              $1.11               $1.02
                                      ===============    ================    ===============    ================



Fully diluted:
  Average shares outstanding              15,879,424          16,234,035         15,901,463          16,193,815

  Dillutive stock options based
       on the treasury stock method
       using average market price            196,778             284,116            201,007             230,132
                                      ---------------    ----------------    ---------------    ----------------

                         TOTALS           16,076,202          16,518,151         16,102,470          16,423,947
                                      ===============    ================    ===============    ================

  Net Income                              $4,565,000          $3,332,000        $17,864,000         $16,797,000

  Per share amount                             $0.28               $0.20              $1.11               $1.02
                                      ===============    ================    ===============    ================
</TABLE>

                                       20
2011.104-70 NRC Clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.211-70 Preparation of Technical Reports, when deliverables include a technical report.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.211-71 Technical Progress Report, in all solicitations and contracts except— ( 1 ) Firm fixed price; or
( 2 ) Indefinite-delivery contracts to be awarded on a time-and-materials or labor-hour basis, or that provide for issuing delivery orders for specific products/services (line items).
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2052.211-72 Financial Status Report, in applicable cost reimbursement solicitations and contracts when detailed assessment of costs is warranted and a Contractor Spending Plan is required. The contracting officer shall use the clause at 2052.211-72 Financial Status Report—Alternate 1 when no Contractor Spending Plan is required.
( d ) The contracting officer may alter clauses at 2052.211-70, 2052.211-71, 2052.211-72, and 2052.211-72, Alternate 1 before issuing the solicitation or during competition by solicitation amendment. Reporting requirements should be set at a meaningful and productive frequency. Insignificant changes may also be made by the contracting officer on a case-by-case basis during negotiations without solicitation amendment.
#### § 757.1 Scope of subpart A.

Subpart A describes how to assert, administer, and collect claims for damage to or loss or destruction of Government property through negligence or wrongful acts.