alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 4/30/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 68

Jaclyn Kay Johnson, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

North Dakota Department of Transportation, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20080309

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lawrence E. Jahnke, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Alexander F. Reichert, Reichert Armstrong Law Office, 218 South 3rd Street, Grand Forks, ND 58201, for petitioner and appellant.

Andrew Moraghan, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 North 9th Street, Bismarck, ND 58501-4509, for respondent and appellee.

Johnson v. Department of Transportation

No. 20080309

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Jaclyn Kay Johnson appealed from a district court judgment affirming an administrative agency decision suspending her driving privileges for three years after being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  On appeal Johnson argued she was seized before the arresting officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that she had violated the law. We affirm  under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5); see City of Jamestown v. Jerome, 2002 ND 34, 639 N.W.2d 478.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
1309.407-3 Procedures. ( a ) *Investigation and referral.* DOC employees shall immediately refer any cause that might serve as the basis for suspension through the contracting officer to the suspending official.
( b ) *Decision-making process.* ( 1 ) Procedures shall afford the contractor, and any named affiliates, an opportunity to submit information and argument in opposition to the proposed suspension. This may be done in person, in writing or through a representative.
( 2 ) In actions not based upon an indictment, where the contractor's submission raises a genuine dispute over facts material to the proposed suspension and if no determination has been made, on the basis of Department of Justice advice, that substantial interests of the Government in pending or contemplated legal proceedings based on the same facts as the suspension would be prejudiced, the following procedures will be followed: ( i ) Provide the contractor an opportunity to appear with counsel, submit documentary evidence, present witnesses and confront any person the agency presents;
( ii ) A transcribed record of the proceeding will be made, unless the agency and contractor mutually agree to waive the requirement for a transcript. This transcribed record is available to the contractor at cost.
( c ) *Notice of suspension.* A notice of suspension shall be issued by the suspending official in accordance with FAR 9.407-3(c)(1) through (6).
( d ) *Suspending official's decision.* ( 1 ) For actions based upon an indictment, when there is no authentic dispute over material facts, in which additional proceedings to determine disputed material facts have been denied on the basis of Department of Justice advice, the suspending official's decision shall be based on all of the information in the administrative record plus any contractor-submitted data.
( 2 ) ( i ) When necessary, written findings of fact shall be prepared as to the disputed material facts. The suspending official will utilize the information in the written findings of fact, the data submitted by the contractor plus any other information in the administrative record to develop the decision.
( ii ) While the suspending official may refer matters involving disputed material facts to another official for findings of fact, the suspending official can disregard any such findings in whole or in part upon a determination that they are clearly erroneous.
( iii ) After the conclusion of proceedings with respect to disputed facts, the suspending official will make a decision.
( 3 ) The suspension may be modified or terminated by the suspending official. However such a decision shall be without prejudice to the subsequent imposition of: ( i ) Suspension by any other agency; or
( ii ) Debarment by any agency.
( 4 ) The suspending official's decision shall be sent to the contractor and any affiliates involved, in writing, by certified mail, return receipt requested.
( e ) Procurement counsel shall assist and advise the suspending official at each stage of the decision-making process.
#### 17.102 Applicability.

For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, the authorities cited in 17.101 do not apply to contracts for the purchase of supplies to which 40 U.S.C. 759 applies (information resource management supply contracts).
Eligible applicants include:
      -  institutions of higher education (IHEs), 
      - local education agencies (LEAs), 
      - nonprofit organizations, 
      - state education agencies (SEAs), and 
      - other organizations and/or agencies.

In addition to the categories above, public charter schools that are LEAs under state law, other public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, for-profit organizations, outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), freely associated states, and Indian tribes or tribal organizations.
On December 10, 2013, OCR and the Lynn Public Schools (District) reached  an agreement regarding the overrepresentation of Black students in alternative  school special education programs.  The  agreement, entered into prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation,  resolved OCR’s compliance review.  The District agreed to form a  committee with expertise in addressing the overrepresentation of minorities in  special education and to make recommendations to  ensure the District is making appropriate determinations and addressing the  root causes of the overrepresentation; take steps to ensure that its  pre-referral program is consistently implemented at all schools, including the  requirement that students be educated in the least restrictive environment  (LRE); provide written criteria to staff relating to the determination of when  a student with a disability does or does not need an alternative school special  education program placement; develop and distribute to all staff written  guidelines for proper student file maintenance and annually monitor the files;  conduct an annual administrative review of the placement of every Black student  at an alternative school special education program and  take appropriate action in response to any inappropriate evaluation or placement  decisions; ensure and document that parents are advised of their right  to procedural safeguards; train staff on alternative school special education  program enrollment data trends, pre-referral processes, timely and appropriate  evaluations, use of electronic data and proper file maintenance, outreach to  students and parents, LRE, and how student racial, ethnic and cultural  differences can affect special education referral, evaluation and placement  processes; and develop and implement a comprehensive, interactive, and ongoing  informational program for the parents of students placed in the alternative  school special education programs regarding the District’s efforts to educate  all of its special education students in the LRE.***Read    the  Resolution Letter***PDF (151K)    | ***Read    the Resolution Agreement***PDF (266K)

Top
#### In the Matter of Jerome Rufus v. Department of State of the State of New York.

Motion to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the proceeding to be heard upon a typewritten record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten petitioner’s points, upon condition that the petitioner serves one copy of the typewritten record and one copy of the typewritten petitioner’s points on the Attorney-General, and files six typewritten copies of the record (only one copy of which need contain the minutes) and six typewritten copies of petitioner’s points with this court. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
|   | • | fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/      James Traicoff                                                      |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                         |
|   | Name:  | James      Traicoff                                                          |
|   | Title: | Treasurer      and Chief Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer) |
|   | Date:  | November      15, 2010                                                       |

----
## Review Process

Institutions designated as HBGIs must submit an application.  Funds are allocated based on a statutory formula.  HBGIs that are eligible for grants are specified in the program's authorizing statute.

For any questions, please contact the program office.

Institutional Service Home
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**UNDER
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cybrdi Inc. (“We") for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yanbiao Bai, the chief executive
      officer of us, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of us.





Date:
      August 18, 2008





/s/Yanbiao
                BaiYanbiao
                Bai, CEO and President
# C_2016415EN.01000301.xml

| 11.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 415/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 415/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7975 — Mylan/Meda)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 415/02)

On 20 July 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7975. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7975. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
### 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 December 28, 2011

y1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143496

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143496 COA: 300498 Genesee CC: 07-021903-FC KYLE ROBERT PALMATEER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<PAGE>

                  GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
               WAIVER OF SURRENDER CHARGE - TERMINAL ILLNESS OR
              CONFINEMENT TO A MEDICAL CARE FACILITY ENDORSEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This endorsement is added to the Contract. This endorsement is effective on the
Contract Date. It amends the CONTRACT VALUE BENEFITS section by adding the
following:

Waiver of Surrender Charge in the Event of Terminal Illness

We will waive the surrender charge for one or more withdrawals if, with respect
to any Annuitant:

   .   the Annuitant has been diagnosed with a terminal illness by a licensed
       physician; and

   .   a licensed physician certifies the Annuitant's medical condition is
       expected to result in death within [12 months] of such certification; and

   .   the diagnosis is supported by clinical, radiological, laboratory or
       other evidence of the medical condition; and

   .   the diagnosis was made at least [90 days] after the Contract Date; and

   .   we receive satisfactory proof that you have a terminal illness; and

   .   the withdrawal occurs after receipt of satisfactory proof.

All Annuitants must be age [80 or younger] on the Contract Date to be eligible
for this waiver.

Waiver of Surrender Charge in the Event of Confinement to a Medical Care
Facility

We will waive the surrender charge for one or more withdrawals if, with respect
to any Annuitant:

   .   the Annuitant enters a state-licensed facility providing medically
       necessary in-patient care (the "Facility"); and

   .   the confinement must be prescribed by a licensed physician in writing
       and be based on limitations that prohibit daily living in a
       non-institutional environment; and

   .   the Annuitant has spent at least [30 consecutive days] in the Facility;
       and

   .   the confinement began at least [90 days] after the Contract Date; and

   .   we receive satisfactory proof of such confinement; and

   .   we receive the request for the withdrawal in our administrative office
       while the Annuitant is confined or within [90 days] after the discharge
       from the Facility.

All Annuitants must be age [80 or younger] on the Contract Date to be eligible
for this waiver.

Satisfactory Proof

For purposes of the provisions above, satisfactory proof will include a
properly completed claim form and a written statement from a licensed
physician. The licensed physician must be someone other than you or your
relative. We reserve the right to obtain a second opinion at our expense and to
contest whether the illness is terminal or the confinement is medically
necessary.

For Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York,

                                                  /s/ David J. Sloane
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  [David J. Sloane]
                                                  President
consulting ♦ training ♦ data systems

May 13, 2014 via Federal Express

Mr. Wren Stenger

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

U.S. EPA Region 6, 6PD

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

RE: Permitting Authority for PSD Air Quality Permit for GHG Emissions 

PSD-TX-1352-GHG - M&G Resins USA, LLC, Project Jumbo, Corpus Christi, TX and

PSD-TX-1354-GHG - M&G Resins USA, LLC, Utility Plant, Corpus Christi, TX formerly

NRG Corpus Christi Combined Heat and Power Plant

Mr. Stenger:

On behalf of M&G Resins USA (M&G), Zephyr Environmental Corporation (Zephyr) is 

submitting this response to your March 27, 2014 letter to Mr. Mauro Fenoglio of M&G. That

letter instructed M&G to notify EPA of its preferred permitting authority for the Greenhouse Gas 

(GHG) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application for Project Jumbo (PSD 

Permit Number PSD-TX-1352-GHG), by May 15. 

Please be advised that M&G requests that EPA remain the permitting authority for PSD Permit 

Number PSD-TX-1352-GHG.

In addition, as Mr. Jeff Robinson, EPA, was notified in a letter dated March 27, 2013, M&G now 

has ownership of the air permit applications for the former NRG Texas Power (NRG) Corpus 

Christi Combined Heat and Power Plant Project (PSD Permit Number PSD-TX-1354-GHG). 

Therefore, this letter is also the response to your March 27, 2014 letter to Mr. Craig Eckberg of 

NRG, which also included an instruction to notify EPA of the preferred permitting authority for 

the GHG PSD permit application for the CHP project.

Please be advised that M&G requests that EPA remain the permitting authority for PSD Permit 

Number PSD-TX-1354-GHG, as well. 

If you have any questions regarding this registration, please contact me, at 512‐879‐6632 or 

tsullivan@zephyrenv.com, or Allana Whitney, of Chemtex, at (910) 509-4451 or 

Allana.Whitney@chemtex.com. Please note that Chemtex is a wholly owned subsidiary of

M&G and serves as the engineering arm of M&G for Project Jumbo. 

www.ZephyrEnv.com ♦ www.HazMatAcademy.com

2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 450 ♦ Austin, Texas 78746 ♦ PH 512.329.5544 ♦ FAX 512.329.8253
Mr. Wren Stenger

May 13, 2014

Page 2

Sincerely,

Zephyr Environmental Corporation

Thomas Sullivan, P.E.

Principal

cc: Allana Whitney, Chemtex

Mauro Fenoglio, M&G

Mike Wilson, P.E., Director, Air Permits Division, TCEQ, Austin
The Department reports annually on performance measures and indicators for this program in the Justification for Appropriations submitted to Congress as part of the President's Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Education.
#### Walter Gross, Appellant, v. George N. Wise, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained as the result of malpractice, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered November 22, 1961, which dismissed his complaint upon the opening statement of his counsel to the jury on the trial, and upon such counsel’s offer of proof to the court in the absence of the jury. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In his offer of proof plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the last alleged act of malpractice occurred on July 16, 1954 and that, while treatment was rendered by defendant subsequent thereto on at least 39 occasions until April of 1957, there was no claim by plaintiff that this latter treatment was improper. The action was commenced in July, 1957. In our opinion, based on the offer of proof, the alleged malpractice was not a continuing wrong; hence, the action is barred by the two-year limitation period (Civ. Prac. Act, § 50, subd. 1; *Hammer*v. *Rosen,*7 N Y 2d 376; *Nervick*v. *Fine,*195 Misc. 464, affd. 275 App. Div. 1043; *Conklin*v. *Draper,*229 App. Div. 227, affd. 254 N. Y. 620; *Matthews*v. *Pisani,*8 A D 2d 854, motion for leave to appeal denied 7 N Y 2d 708). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
LD. 06184818 File No. 3900-355

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Western Division

J&IJ SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2012-cy-50226
HILDA ARGUETA, DANIEL ARGUETA and
JOHN ARGUETA, indy, and d/b/a
CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR INC.
d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR
and CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR
INC. d/b/a CHARLIES’ RESTAURANT AND
BAR,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE AND ENTER AN ORDER OF
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS

NOW COME the Plaintiff, J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., and respectfully
requests that this Court Reinstate this matter against Defendants, HILDA ARGUETA, DANIEL
ARGUETA and JOHN ARGUETA, indy. and d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR
INC. d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR and CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND
BAR INC. d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR, and in support thereof, states as
follows:

1 That on March 27, 2013, this matter was dismissed without prejudice by this
Honorable Court.

2. That a Settlement Agreement was entered into by both parties wherein which the
Defendants would pay a total of $5,000.00 to the Plaintiff. Payments in the amount of $200.00
were to be made on or before the 15" of each month beginning on February 15, 2013 and
continuing through January 15, 2014. See attached Exhibit A.

3. As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has paid Plaintiff a total of $400.00
towards the $5,000.00 settlement which was made in May of 2013.

4, That pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendant currently owes Plaintiff a

total amount of $4,600.00 plus attorney’s fees in the amount of Six Hundred and 00/100 ($600.00).



See attached Affidavit Exhibit B.
6. Additionally, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay a
$3,000.00 penalty fee should they default in payment. See attached Settlement Agreement.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, J&J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., prays this Honorable
Court enter an order to Reinstate this case against Defendants, HILDA ARGUETA, DANIEL
ARGUETA and JOHN ARGUETA, indv. and d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR
INC. d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR and CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND
BAR INC. d/b/a CHARLIE’S RESTAURANT AND BAR, and enter an Order for Judgment in the
amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred and 00/100 ($4,600.00) plus attorney’s fees in the amount
of Six Hundred and 00/100 ($600.00) and Three Thousand and 00/100 ($3,000.00) in penalty fees
for a total Judgment in the amount of Eight Thousand Two Hundred and 00/100 ($8,200.00) and

for any additional relief for Plaintiff this Honorable Court deems just.

s/Andre Ordeanu
Andre Ordeanu

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andre Ordeanu, on oath state that a true and correct copy of the Notice of Filing was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court on January 22, 2014, using the CM/ECF system
which will send notification of such filing(s) to all attorneys of record. Under the penalties of
perjury, I certify that the above statements set forth herein are true and correct.

s/ Andre Ordeanu
Andre Ordeanu

Zane D, Smith

ZANE D. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
415 North LaSalle Street - Suite 501
Chicago, Illinois 60654

(312) 245-0031

(312) 245-0022 - Fax