alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Audrey Gluckin, Respondent-Appellant, v Gerald W. Gluckin, Appellant-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 22, 1978, which directed defendant husband to pay to plaintiff wife $25,000 a year alimony retroactive to a date prior to the commencement of the action, and which, *inter alia,*determined that the wife receive one half of certain income tax refunds, and that the husband have one half interest in certain jewelry and one half interest in the proceeds of a marital home, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to reduce the amount of alimony to $15,000 a year, commencing with the date of the institution of the action on August 2, 1974, and otherwise affirmed. In view of the substantial assets in which the wife continues to have an interest, and in view of the uncertain nature of the husband’s present ability to have income, we deem the award of alimony by the trial court to be excessive to the extent indicated. Further, the award should not have been retroactive prior to the commencement of the action. We have examined the other contentions of both parties on the appeal and cross appeal, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order 

November 4, 2009 

134640-1 & (70) 

VICKI L. ZUNICH, Individually, as Next 

Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH, a Minor, as 

Next Friend for MATTHEW ZUNICH, a 

Minor, and as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of STEVEN J. ZUNICH, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 134640 

 COA: 265027 

Midland CC: 03-005843-NH 

FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF 

MIDLAND, P.C., JERRY L. FERRELL, 

M.D., and ROBERTA L. CORBAT, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

VICKI L. ZUNICH, Individually, as Next 

Friend for CHARLES ZUNICH, a Minor, as 

Next Friend for MATTHEW ZUNICH, a 

Minor, and as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of STEVEN J. ZUNICH, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 134641 

 COA: 265028 

Midland CC: 02-005382-NH 

MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTERMIDLAND, JEFFREY S. NEWMAN, M.D., 

FAMILY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF 

MIDLAND, P.C., a/k/a FAMILY PRACTICE 

ASSOCIATES OF MIDLAND, P.C., 

KENNETH M. MACKINNON, M.D., 

JAMES H. FRYE, M.D., MIDMICHIGAN 

HEALTH, and FAITH D. FUENTES, M.D., 

Defendants-Appellees. 
I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 4, 2009 

l1028 

 

2

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the orders of the Midland Circuit 

Court granting the defendants’ motions for summary disposition, and we REMAND this 

case to the Midland Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of Bush v Shabahang, 484 

Mich 156 (2009), and Potter v McLeary, 484 Mich 397 (2009).
August 30, 1979.

Appeal No. 78-433.

#### Elliott R. Olevson *v.*William Caldarone.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a claim of malicious prosecution.

Following the filing of briefs, we issued an order to the plaintiff directing him to appear before us on May 8, 1979 to show cause why his appeal ought not to be dismissed in light of Super. R. Civ. P. 56 (c) and (e) and this court’s well-established rule that, where no genuine issues of material fact *877exist, summary judgment may properly enter if dictated by applicable law. *Kirby, Inc.*v. *Weiler,*108 R.I. 423, 425, 276 A.2d 285, 286-87 (1971).

*Samuel A. Olevson,*for plaintiff. *Mark E. Liberati, Theodore A. Miller,*for defendant.

The plaintiff, through his attorney, appeared before us on the specified date and attempted to show cause. He failed, however, to demonstrate that any genuine issues of material fact existed in the case at bar and additionally failed to excuse his failure to comply with the requirement of Super. R. Civ. P. 56(c) that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made, if he is to avoid the granting of the motion, must in his response set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

The plaintiff having failed to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed, his appeal is herewith denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed and the case is remanded to the Superior Court.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Superior Well Services, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas W. Stoelk, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of thisSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       By: /s/ Thomas W. Stoelk         Thomas W. Stoelk    Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 8, 2005     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany or the certifying officer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toSuperior Well Services, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
34
#### PEABODY et al. v. LONG ACRE SQUARE BLDG. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Charles A. Peabody and others against the Long Acre Square Building Company.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.84 Approval or rejection. ( a ) - ( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) *Appeal rights.* A debtor whose debt settlement offer is rejected will be notified of appeal rights pursuant to 7 CFR part 11.
[58 FR 21345, Apr. 21, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 7700, Feb. 18, 2003]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: PAF Program Videos      

# Resource: PAF Program Videos

These new videos highlight the Pregnancy Assistance Fund (PAF), a program that supports expectant and parenting teens and their children:
                  - **OAH's Pregnancy Assistance Fund: Supporting Young Parents and Their Children:**  Describes how the work of PAF grantees support expectant and parenting youth in caring for children, building healthier relationships, and achieving their goals.
                  - **New Heights: A Support Network for Expecting and Parenting Teens:**  Describes a Washington, DC, program that builds parenting skills and is working to close the achievement gap between young parents and their peers.
§ 1900.54 Effect on assistance pending appeal. ( a ) Assistance will not be discontinued pending the outcome of an appeal of a complete or partial adverse decision.
( b ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, administrative offsets initiated under subpart C of part 1951 will not be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal and any further review of the decision to initiate the offset.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MORRIS EUGENE HAYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163-2-20) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris Eugene Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Morris Eugene Hayes appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hayes , No. CR-94-163-2-20 (E.D. Va. Apr. 11, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Julieta O. MANDONAHAN, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7323.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2006.

*931Julieta O. Mandonahan, pro se.

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Julieta O. Mandona-han’s appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ May 9, 2006 judgment in *Mandonahan v. Nicholson,*03-1793, 2006 WL 4468023 (Vet.App July 10, 2006), for lack of jurisdiction. Mandonahan has not responded.

Mandonahan appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a 2003 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decision denying her claim to entitlement for dependent and indemnity compensation (DIC), accrued benefits, burial benefits, and dependents’ educational assistance benefits. Mandonahan argued that she was entitled to DIC benefits because her late husband was receiving benefits at the time of his death. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determined that the BVA did not err in concluding that Mando-nahan’s late husband was 50% disabled and that Mandonahan would have been entitled to received DIC benefits only if her late husband had been totally disabled for more than ten years at the time of his death. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determined that the BVA had not erred in denying Mandonahan’s claim for payment of accrued benefits because her late husband had no claims pending at the time of his death. Finally, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the BVA’s determination that Mandonahan was not entitled to burial benefits or DEA benefits. Mandonahan appealed.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. *See Forshey v. Principi*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). This court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

The Secretary argues that Madonahan’s informal brief does not raise an issue that falls within this court’s jurisdiction. In her informal brief, Mandonahan argues that she is entitled to DIC benefits because her husband was continuously receiving benefits at the time of his death, because he was a naturalized American citizen at the time of his death, because his death was not due to a willful act or misconduct of the veteran, and because he was totally disabled.

These arguments concern the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim’s factual determinations and applications of the law to the facts. Thus, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), Mandonahan’s appeal is not within this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

*932(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
§ 1822.275 Actions after sites are developed. The building sites will be sold on a nonprofit basis to eligible families or organizations as described in § 1822.266(c). ( a ) An option, RD 440-34, “Option to Purchase Real Property,” will be executed. The site will be clearly identified by a land survey.
( b ) The sale price of each individual site will not be more than a sufficient amount to pay a proportionate part of the RHS loan and any other actual costs of buying, developing, and selling the building site.
( c ) The proceeds from sale of the building sites will be applied on the RHS loan and any prior lien or, with the prior approval of the National Office, used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the loan and the security interest of the Government. The sites will be released from the mortgage in accordance with 7 CFR part 3550, subpart D or otherwise in accordance with prior approval of the National Office.
[35 FR 16087, July 1, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 4135, Feb. 3, 1986; 67 FR 78326, Dec. 24, 2002; 80 FR 9866, Feb. 24, 2015]
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.567 Section 504 Housing Repair grants. ( a ) *Amount available for allocations.* See § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
( b ) *Basic formula criteria, data source and weight.* See § 1940.552(b) of this subpart. The criteria used in the basic formula are: ( 1 ) State's percentage of the National number of rural occupied substandard units,
( 2 ) State's percentage of the National rural population 62 years and older, and
( 3 ) State's percentage of the National number of rural households below 50 percent of area median income. The data source for the first two of these criteria is the most recent decennial Census data. The data source for the third criterion is the 5-year data from the American Community Survey (ACS) or, if needed, other Census Bureau data. Each criterion is assigned a specific weight according to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at a basic State factor (SF). SF = (criterion No. 1 × weight of 33 1/3%) + (criterion No. 2 × weight of 33 1/3%) + (criterion No. 3 × weight of 33 1/3%)
( c ) *Basic formula allocation.* See § 1940.552(c) of this subpart.
( d ) *Transition formula.* See § 1940.552(d) of this subpart. The percentage range used for section 504 Housing Repair grants is plus or minus 15.
( e ) *Base allocation.* Not used.
( f ) *Administrative allocations.* See § 1940.552(f) of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive administrative allocations.
( g ) *Reserve.* See § 1940.552(g) of this subpart.
( h ) *Pooling of funds.* See § 1940.552(h) of this subpart. ( 1 ) *Mid-year:* If used in a particular fiscal year, available funds unobligated as of the pooling date are pooled and redistributed based on the formula used to allocate funds initially.
( 2 ) *Year-end:* Pooled funds are placed in a National Office reserve and are available as determined administratively.
( i ) *Availability of the allocation.* See § 1940.552(i) of this subpart.
( j ) *Suballocation by the State Director.* See § 1940.552(j) of this subpart. At the option of the State Director, section 504 grant funds may be suballocated to the District Offices. When performing a suballocation, the State Director will use the same basic formula criteria, data source and weight for suballocating funds within the State as used by the National Office in allocating to the States as described in § 1940.567 (b) and (c) of this section.
( k ) *Other documentation.* Not applicable.
[50 FR 24180, June 10, 1985, as amended at 80 FR 9877, Feb. 24, 2015]
§ 1755.500 RUS standard for service installations at customers access locations. ( a ) Sections 1755.501 through 1755.510 cover service installations at permanent or mobile home customer access locations. Sections 1755.501 through 1755.510 do not cover service installations at customer access locations associated with boat yards or marinas.
( b ) Service installations for customer access locations in boat yards or marinas shall be performed in accordance with Article 800, Communications Circuits, of the American National Standards Institute/National Fire Protection Association (ANSI/NFPA) 70-1999, *National Electrical Code* ® (*NEC* ®). The *National Electrical Code* ® and *NEC* ® are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Quincy, MA 02269. The ANSI/NFPA 70-1999, *NEC* ® is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269-9101, telephone number 1 (800) 344-3555. Copies of ANSI/NFPA 70-1999, *NEC* ®, are available for inspection during normal business hours at Rural Utilities Service (RUS), room 2905, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 1598, Washington, DC 20250-1598, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
[66 FR 43317, Aug. 17, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004]
EXHIBIT 23.1





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the:

     (i)  Registration Statement No. 33-29287 on Form S-8 and related Prospectus
          with respect to the 1989 Long Term  Performance  Incentive  Plan of NL
          Industries, Inc.; and

     (ii) Registration Statement No. 33-25913 on Form S-8 and related Prospectus
          with respect to the NL Industries, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan; and

     (iii)Registration   Statement  No.   333-65817  on  Form  S-8  and  related
          Prospectus  with respect to the NL  Industries,  Inc.  1998  Long-Term
          Incentive Plan; and

     (iv) Registration Statement No. 33-48145 on Form S-8 and related Prospectus
          with respect to the NL Industries,  Inc. 1992  Non-Employee  Directors
          Stock Option Plan.

of our report  dated March 5, 2004 on our audits of the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  financial  statement  schedules  of NL  Industries,  Inc. as of
December 31, 2002 and 2003,  and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2003, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





                           PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Dallas, Texas
March 8, 2004
#### § 1783.16 How will the loans given from the revolving fund be serviced?

The grant recipient shall be responsible for servicing all loans, to include preparing loan agreements, processing loan payments, reviewing financial statements and debt reserves balances, and other responsibilities such as enforcement of loan terms. Loan servicing will be in accordance with the work plan approved by the Agency when the grant is awarded for as long as any loan made in whole or in part with Agency grant funds is outstanding.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Date: August 12, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Frank Perez         |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Name: Frank Perez       |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### 952.227-84 Notice of right to request patent waiver.

Include this provision in all appropriate solicitations in accordance with 48 CFR 927.409(t).

# Right To Request Patent Waiver (FEB 1998)

Offerors have the right to request a waiver of all or any part of the rights of the United States in inventions conceived or first actually reduced to practice in performance of the contract that may be awarded as a result of this solicitation, in advance of or within 30 days after the effective date of contracting. Even where such advance waiver is not requested or the request is denied, the contractor will have a continuing right under the contract to request a waiver of the rights of the United States in identified inventions, i.e., individual inventions conceived or first actually reduced to practice in performance of the contract. Domestic small businesses and domestic nonprofit organizations normally will receive the patent rights clause at DEAR 952.227-11 which permits the contractor to retain title to such inventions, except under contracts for management or operation of a Government-owned research and development facility or under contracts involving exceptional circumstances or intelligence activities. Therefore, small businesses and nonprofit organizations normally need not request a waiver. See the patent rights clause in the draft contract in this solicitation. See DOE's patent waiver regulations at 10 CFR part 784.

(End of provision)

[63 FR 10508, Mar. 4, 1998]