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

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

y0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

141902

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141902 COA: 297654 Macomb CC: 1 976-000436-FY ARTHUR LEE BURGESS, 1976-000440-FY Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 24, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### KNICKERBOCKER TRUST CO. v. O’ROURKE ENGINEERING CONST. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 30, 1905.)

Pleading—Bill of Particulars.

Where an agreement is alleged in defense, plaintiff is entitled to a bill of particulars as to whether the agreement referred to is in writing, and, if not in writing, then a statement to that effect.

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by the Knickerbocker Trust Company, as trustee, against the O’Rourke Engineering Construction Company. From an order granting a motion for a bill of particulars, defendant appeals.

Modified.:

*117Argued before INGRAHAM, McRAUGHUN, CLARICE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

Abram J: Rose, for appellant.

Herbert Barry, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars of certain matters alleged as a defense to the cause of action.

We are of the opinion that a bill of particulars was properly ordered as to certain facts alleged, and which are designated in the order “1” and *“4.”*Plaintiff was not entitled to a bill of particulars as to the items designated *“2”*and “3,” nor was it entitled to all of that designated “6.” As to “6,” plaintiff is entitled to a bill of particulars as to whether the agreement referred to in that item is in writing, and, if not in writing, then a statement to that effect, and this is all it is entitled to under that item.

The order appealed from/ therefore, should be modified as here-indicated, and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.
#### 2405.502 Authority.

Use of paid advertisements in newspapers, trade journals, and other media are authorized by Delegations or Redelegations of Authority, subject to the availability of funds.

[49 FR 7701, Mar. 1, 1984]
222.807 Exemptions. ( c ) Follow the procedures at PGI 222.807(c) when submitting a request for an exemption.
[71 FR 18670, Apr. 12, 2006]
#### R. Barry Deickler, Respondent, v John Baecher, Defendant, and Elizabeth Baecher, Appellant.

— In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, in which a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Elizabeth Baecher was entered on default, said defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 21, 1977, which denied her motion to vacate the default judgment and (2) a further order of the same court, dated January 19, 1978, which treated her motion "renewing the Order of November 21, 1977 and/or permitting reargument of same” as one for reargument and denied it (we deem said motion to have been one for renewal). Order dated January 19, 1978 reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion to renew granted; upon renewal, order dated November 21, 1977 reversed, without costs or *662disbursements, and motion to vacate granted, with the judgment to stand as security. Appellant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Under the facts of this case, the motion to vacate should be granted with the judgment to stand as security (see *Thomlow v Long Is. R.R. Co.,*33 AD2d 1027; *Mindy’s Wine Cellar v American & Foreign Ins. Co.,*51 AD2d 650; *Capellino Abattoir, Inc. v Lieberman,*59 AD2d 986; *Matter of Dowling v Bowen,*53 AD2d 862; *Coletto v Bimco Ind.,*54 AD2d 955). O’Connor, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Hargett, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: List of restricted joint bidders.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management by the joint bidding provisions of 30 CFR 
556.41, each entity within one of the following groups shall be 
restricted from bidding with any entity in any other of the following 
groups at Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sales to be held 
during the bidding period May 1, 2012, through October 31, 2012. The 
List of Restricted Joint Bidders published in the Federal Register on 
November 2, 2011, covered the period November 1, 2011, through April 
30, 2012.

Group I.
    Exxon Mobil Corporation
    ExxonMobil Exploration Company
Group II.
     Shell Oil Company
    Shell Offshore Inc.
    SWEPI LP
    Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc.
    SOI Finance Inc.
    Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc.
Group III.
    BP America Production Company
    BP Exploration & Production Inc.
    BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
Group IV.
    Chevron Corporation
    Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
    Chevron Midcontinent, L.P.
    Unocal Corporation
    Union Oil Company of California
    Pure Partners, L.P.
Group V.
    ConocoPhillips Company
    ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
    Phillips Pt. Arguello Production Company
    Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP
    Burlington Resources Offshore Inc.
    The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company
    Inexeco Oil Company
Group VI.
    Statoil ASA
    Statoil Gulf of Mexico LLC
    Statoil USA E&P Inc.
    Statoil Gulf Properties Inc.
Group VII.
     Petrobras America Inc.
    Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.
Group VIII. Total E&P USA, Inc.

    Dated: April 6, 2012.
Tommy P. Beaudreau,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2012-10100 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P
```
Napa Valley College (CA): In December 2012, OCR resolved  substantiated claims that a clinical supervisor discriminated against a  non-native-English-speaking nursing student, contributing to the creation of a  hostile environment for the complainant based on national origin by making  disparaging remarks about the student’s accent in front of the class and  intimidating the student. OCR also found that the college failed to respond in  a timely way when the student brought these issues to its attention. To comply  with Title VI, the college entered into a resolution agreement with OCR,  committing to conduct a climate survey; to provide annual notice to students  and employees of its procedures for responding to alleged harassment; and to  send out a statement to all students, faculty, and staff in the Associate  Degree in Nursing program declaring that the college does not tolerate  harassment based on race, color, or national origin, including status as a  non-native English speaker.

Read the Resolution Letter PDF (147K) | Read the Resolution Agreement PDF (21.2K)
# C_2016457EN.01000201.xml

| 8.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 457/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 457/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 December 2016

(2016/C 457/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0730 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4378 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85095 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7735 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0834 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9908 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,036 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,98 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4280 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4980 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,6683 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4408 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4242 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3229 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5022 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5218 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 247,57 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5531 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3836 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5378 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 297,73 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7555 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,259 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,3924 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,231 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6457 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8094 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,5830 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0730

JPY

Japanese yen

122,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4378

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85095

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7735

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0834

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9908

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,036

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,98

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4280

RON

Romanian leu

4,4980

TRY

Turkish lira

3,6683

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4408

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4242

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3229

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5022

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5218

KRW

South Korean won

1 247,57

ZAR

South African rand

14,5531

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3836

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5378

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 297,73

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7555

PHP

Philippine peso

53,259

RUB

Russian rouble

68,3924

THB

Thai baht

38,231

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6457

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8094

INR

Indian rupee

72,5830

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### 252.229-7008 Relief from Import Duty (United Kingdom)

As prescribed in 229.402-70(h), use the following clause:

# Relief from Import Duty (United Kingdom) (DEC 2011)

Any import dutiable articles, components, or raw materials supplied to the United States Government under this contract shall be exclusive of any United Kingdom import duties. Any imported items supplied for which import duty already has been paid will be supplied at a price exclusive of the amount of import duty paid. The Contractor is advised to contact Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to obtain a refund upon completion of the contract (Reference HMRC Notice No. 431, entitled “Relief from Customs Duty and/or Value Added Tax on United States Government Expenditures in the United Kingdom”).

(End of clause)

[76 FR 76320, Dec. 7, 2011]
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.13.1


         AMENDMENT TO THE FOUNDER STOCK REPURCHASE AND VESTING AGREEMENT



     This FIRST AMENDMENT to the FOUNDER STOCK REPURCHASE AND VESTING AGREEMENT
(the "First Amendment") is dated April __, 2000 by and among PARADIGM GENETICS,
INC., a DELAWARE corporation (the "Company"), and JOHN A. RYALS (the "Founder").

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Founder entered into the Founder Stock
Repurchase and Vesting Agreement dated as of February 12, 1998;

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Founder agree to amend the Founder Stock
Repurchase and Vesting Agreement in order to revise certain provisions therein;
and

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants
set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to
be legally bound, hereby amend the Founder Stock Repurchase and Vesting
Agreement and agree as follows:

     1.   The conditions of "Termination of Repurchase Rights" set forth
specifically in Section 5.3(a)(iii) is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:

     "(iii) Upon the closing of a firm commitment underwritten public offering
     pursuant to an effective registration statement under the 1933 Act covering
     the offer and sale of the Company's Common Stock at a price per share of
     not less than $6.00 (as adjusted for stock splits and the like effected
     after the date of this Agreement) and an aggregate offering price to the
     public of not less than $20,000,000, the Founder shall acquire a vested
     interest in, and the Repurchase Right shall lapse with respect to, the
     Unvested Shares as of such closing."

     2.   This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to its conflicts
of law provisions.

     This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts.


                                       1
<PAGE>

     Executed as of the date above written.


PARADIGM GENETICS, INC.:
------------------------


By: _____________________________
Name: __________________________
Title: ___________________________




FOUNDER
-------



_________________________________
John A. Ryals





                                       2
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Partnership;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
periods covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
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 periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining 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 disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants independent
registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function)
 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.
 Date:  March 23, 2007
    /s/ Steven L. BrakeSteven L. BrakeTreasurer
#### TISCHLER v. SHURMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

1. : Bills'and Notes—Assignment—Bona Fides.

The holder of a check given without consideration must show the cir- ' ' cumstances under which it came into his possession, and that he acted * in good faith.

1 ' [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 7, Cent. Dig. Bills and Notes, ' § 1676.]

2. Same—Evidence.

* Evidence that the holder of a check paid value therefor is not conclusive of the fact of bona fides.

3. Same—Sueeicient.

Evidence in an action on a check, for which there was no consideration, held insufficient to show the bona fides of the transaction by which plaintiff came into possession of it.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.

Action by Samuel Tischler against Clifford Shurman. From a judg- . ment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ. '

; Maxwell C. Katz, for appellant.

■' Louis Jersawitz, for respondent.-

SCOTT, P. J.

There is no doubt that the check sued upon was Wholly without consideration, and that the original holder could not have maintained an action thereon. Under such circumstances it is incumbent upon the holder to show .the circumstances under which the paper came into his possession and that he acted in good faith. Bvidence that he paid value for the check, although entitled to great weight, is not conclusive of the fact of bona fides. Canajoharie Nat’l Bank v. Diefendorf, 123 N. Y. 191, 25 N. E. 402, 10 L. R. A. 676. In the present case there are many suspicious circumstances tending to show that the transfer of the check to plaintiff was made merely for the purpose of avoiding the defense of lack of consideration. The original payee of the note was available to plaintiff as a witness, and, indeed, was in court on the day of the trial. He was a client of the plaintiff’s attorney. He was named as defendant, but was never served, and the attorney who acts for the plaintiff in this action has never acted for him in any other matter. Added to this is the fact that the plaintiff cannot recollect on what day of the week he cashed the check, or on what hour of the day. The failure of the plaintiff to call Wresenslcy, the original payee, leaves the bona fides of the transaction unsustained, and forces the conclusion that the plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained the circumstances under which he received the check.

. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

(
# C_2017005EN.01000101.xml

| 7.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 January 2017

(2017/C 5/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0589 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4343 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85648 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5515 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0725 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9868 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,24 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3552 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5013 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,8305 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4433 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4039 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2121 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5073 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5169 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 261,36 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4179 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3253 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5780 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 152,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7359 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,257 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,7475 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,760 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3905 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,5290 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,9945 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0589

JPY

Japanese yen

122,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4343

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85648

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5515

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0725

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9868

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,24

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3552

RON

Romanian leu

4,5013

TRY

Turkish lira

3,8305

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4433

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4039

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2121

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5073

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5169

KRW

South Korean won

1 261,36

ZAR

South African rand

14,4179

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3253

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5780

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 152,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7359

PHP

Philippine peso

52,257

RUB

Russian rouble

62,7475

THB

Thai baht

37,760

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3905

MXN

Mexican peso

22,5290

INR

Indian rupee

71,9945

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9882]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE:  Wednesday, April 27, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 410, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS:  Closed to the public.

Matter To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: April 19, 2011.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9882 Filed 4-19-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
EXHIBIT B 

Case: 1:12-cv-04924 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:7
2415.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors. ( c ) ( 3 ) ( i ) The extent of participation of small businesses in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor, shall be addressed in the source selection for contracts to be awarded using the tradeoff source selection process (see FAR 15.101-1) that require the use of the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
( d ) The solicitation shall state the basis for the source selection decision as either the “lowest price technically acceptable” (LPTA) process or the dquo;tradeoff” process (as defined at FAR subpart 15.1).
[77 FR 73527, Dec. 10, 2012]