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 December 28, 2011

y1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143230

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143230 COA: 299828 Oakland CC: 1979-040760-FH LARRY M. SILSBY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 10, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### §§ 1740.5-1740.8 [Reserved]
#### Chicago Title & Trust Company, as trustee, appellee, v. Celle Becker et al., defendants. Celle Becker, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,685.

Opinion filed December 31, 1929.

*622William A. Rogan, for appellant; William C. Burns and R. Hamlin Petty, of counsel. Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann & Levinson and Walter V. Faekler, for appellee; Roger S. Bloch and J. B. Hugg, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 10(h)

 

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF TRUSTEES’ COMPENSATION

 

The compensation paid to each Individual Trustee and the Corporate Trustee is set forth in the Amendment to the Agreement of Trust dated as of October 25, 1982 (the “Amendment”).  The Amendment is filed as Exhibit 3(a) to the Form 10-K.

 

Pursuant to the Amendment, each Individual Trustee receives at least $20,000 in annual compensation for services as Trustee.  Each year, annual Trustee compensation is adjusted up or down (but not below $20,000) in accordance with changes from the November 1981 level of 295.5 (the “1981 Escalation Level”) in the All Commodities Producer Price Index (with 1967 = 100 as a base).  The All Commodities Producer Price Index is published by the U.S. Department of Labor.  The adjustment is made at the end of each fiscal year and is calculated on the basis of the proportion between (a) the level of such index for the November preceding the end of such fiscal year, and (b) the 1981 Escalation Level.  Each of the Individual Trustees received $40,877 in cash compensation for services to the Trust during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2013.

 

Also pursuant to the Amendment, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Corporate Trustee, receives annual compensation in an amount equal to the greater of (i) $20,000, or such other amount determined in accordance with the adjustments described in the preceding paragraph, or (ii) one quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%) of the Trust Moneys, exclusive of proceeds of sale of any part of the Trust Estate (as such terms are defined in the Agreement of Trust), received by the Trustees and distributed to Trust Unitholders.  The Corporate Trustee earned $85,116 pursuant to this provision for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2013.

 

Additionally, each year the Corporate Trustee receives $62,500 (or more, if unanimously approved by the Individual Trustees) to cover clerical and administrative services to Mesabi Trust other than services customarily performed by a registrar or transfer agent.  In fiscal 2013, the Trust paid the Corporate Trustee $62,500 to cover clerical and administrative services to Mesabi Trust and $8,381 for services as registrar and transfer agent.  The Corporate Trustee earned $155,997 in total compensation for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2013.
#### Oscar G. Durand, Respondent, v. Gaslight Club, Inc., Appellant.

Order entered June 22, 1966, granting motion to vacate the preclusion order on condition that a full bill of particulars is served within five days, and further granting motion to dismiss unless plaintiff file a note of issue and statement of readiness within 20 days, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant. The motion to dismiss is granted unconditionally, with $10 costs. Thus the branch of the appeal relating to the preclusion order .becomes academic. The delay herein was inordinate and not adequately explained. There was not only a failure to comply with the 45-day demand requirement of CPLR 3216 but also an impermissible general delay in the prosecution of the action. *(Thomas*v. *Melbert Foods,*19 N Y 2d 216.) Even if the prior attorney’s neglect were excusable (which it is not, *Walker*v. *Ferri,*5 A D 2d 24) the subsequent conduct of the case by the second attorney was not characterized by expedition. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, McNally, McGivern and Witmer, JJ.
§ 15b.14 Employment criteria. ( a ) A recipient may not make use of any employment test or other selection criterion that screens out or tends to screen out handicapped persons or any class of handicapped persons unless: ( 1 ) The recipient shows that the test score or other selection criterion, as used by the recipient, is job-related for the position in question, and
( 2 ) the Secretary cannot show that alternative job-related tests or criteria are available that do not screen out or tend to screen out as many handicapped persons.
( b ) A recipient shall select and administer tests concerning employment so as best to ensure that, when administered to an applicant or employee who has a handicap that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the applicant's or employee's job skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the applicant's or employee's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification
      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 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.
 Date: August 7, 2008
    /s/ G. Gary YetmanChief Executive Officer and President
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 this Quarterly  Report of Morgan Creek Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
Urquhart,  President/Chief  Executive  Officer  and I, D.  Bruce  Horton,  Chief
Financial  Officer,  of the  Company,  certify  to the  best  of our  knowledge,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 the Company.


Date: August 18, 2008

                                          /s/ DAVID URQUHART
                                          _____________________________________
                                              David Urquhart
                                              President/Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ D. BRUCE HORTON
                                          _____________________________________
                                              D. Bruce Horton
                                              Chief Financial Officer
§ 1737.100 Prerequisites to the release and advance of funds. ( a ) Standard prerequisites to the advance of funds, generally applied to all loans, are set forth in Article II of the form of loan contract attached as appendix A to 7 CFR part 1758. Additional prerequisites may be added on a case by case basis to the loan contract.
( b ) Before any loan funds can be advanced, RUS must approve a release of funds.
( c ) RUS approves the release of funds only after it determines that all prerequisites to the advance of loan funds have been met or funds should be advanced even though certain loan contract prerequisites remain unsatisfied.
( d ) Following release approval, loan funds and related nonloan funds may be advanced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1744.
( e ) The borrower may be required to discharge indebtedness and/or to close acquisitions before advances are made for construction purposes. In such cases, the borrower shall submit evidence that these actions have been completed. If the evidence is satisfactory to RUS, RUS shall allow the remaining loan funds to be advanced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1744.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0085)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA comparison of two trusses for the space station structureThe structural performance of two truss configurations, the orthogonal tetrahedral and a Warren-type, are compared using finite element models representing the November Reference Phase 1 Space Station. The truss torsional stiffness properties and fundamental torsion frequency are determined using cantilever truss-beam models. Frequencies, mode shapes, transient response, and truss strut compressive loads are compared for the two space station models. The performance benefit resulting from using a high modulus truss strut is also presented. Finally, assembly and logistics characteristics of the two truss configurations are evaluated.Document ID19890006599Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSutter, Thomas R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Bush, Harold G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1989Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4093L-16540NASA-TM-4093Accession Number89N15970Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-43-41-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890006599.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Charles J. JENKINS, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7380.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2007.

Rehearing Denied April 20, 2007.

Charles J. Jenkins, of New Roads, Louisiana, pro se.

Lisa L. Donahue, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keis-ler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and William F. Ryan, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Ethan G. Ka-lett, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Charles J. Jenkins appeals from the decision 1 of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying him a writ of mandamus. Since the Secretary has performed the act which was the subject of the proposed writ, we *dismiss*the appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Jenkins served in the United States Army from January 30, 1969 to September 3, 1970. He was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and has been diagnosed with type II diabetes mellitus, resulting from that exposure. On January 2, 2004 he filed a claim to establish service connection for heart disease, secondary to his diabetes.

On March 6, 2006, Mr. Jenkins filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the CAVC seeking to compel the Secretary of *990Veterans Affairs to process his claim for benefits. The court denied the petition and Mr. Jenkins appealed to this Court.

On September 22, 2006, while his appeal to us was pending, the VA Regional Office in New Orleans issued a Rating Decision awarding Mr. Jenkins a rating of 100% service connected disability for his heart disease along with additional compensation for his home-bound status and eligibility for dependents’ educational assistance.

DISCUSSION

The Secretary argues that this appeal is now moot, since the Secretary has both processed Mr. Jenkins’ claim and has awarded him the highest amount of compensation possible. Mr. Jenkins argues that the appeal is still not moot as there are other conditions for which he seeks compensation that were not addressed in the rating decision.

Mr. Jenkins misunderstands the nature of the writ of mandamus he requested. A writ of mandamus is used to “eommand[ ] an inferior tribunal, board, corporation, or person to perform a purely ministerial duty imposed by law,” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.1979. The writ Mr. Jenkins requested was to compel the Secretary to process his claim. The Secretary has done that act, so Mr. Jenkins’ petition for a writ is moot. If there are still issues remaining to be determined in Mr. Jenkins’ claim, or if he is otherwise dissatisfied with the Secretary’s action, he may follow the procedures appropriate to his situation.

Mr. Jenkins’ appeal is dismissed as moot.

No costs.

1

. *Jenkins v. Nicholson,*No. 06-685, 2006 WL 1522443 (Vet.App. Mar. 27, 2006).
#### § 1786.97 Prepayment.

There were 29 former RUS electric borrowers that prepaid their direct or insured loans under section 306B(a) of the Act prior to October 1, 1987. (See subpart C of this part.) These borrowers are listed in appendix A to subpart E of this part. Any RUS electric borrower which is the result of a merger or consolidation involving any of these 29 former borrowers and a borrower with outstanding Notes may, after meeting all requirements of this subpart, prepay all outstanding RUS Notes issued or assumed by the borrower upon paying the lesser of the outstanding balance or the Discounted Present Value. Such prepayment must be made not later than one year after the effective date of the merger or consolidation.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced LifeSciences Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending June 30,2010 (the “Report”), I, John L. Flavin, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

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

 
|   | Date:  August 11, 2010                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |
|   | /s/  John L. Flavin                        |
|   | John  L. Flavin                            |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer                   |
|   | Advanced  Life Sciences Holdings, Inc |

 

----
#### § 1927.100 OMB control number.

The reporting requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0147. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 5 minutes to 1.5 hours per response, with an average of .38 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, Ag Box 7630, Washington, DC 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB #0575-0147), Washington, DC 20503. You are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
#### § 1775.62 [Reserved]
#### B. C. Zernes, trading as B. C. Zernes & Company, appellant, v. Emanuel J. Goodman, appellee.

Gen. No. 33,363.

Opinion filed November 6, 1929.

Harry C. Diamond and L. L. Smith, for appellant; Jacob Diamond, of counsel. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit 32.2****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Directed Electronics, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Morberg, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ John D. Morberg         John D. Morberg  November 14, 2006 Chief Financial Officer  
22
#### § 1775.6 Equal opportunity requirements.

The policies and regulations contained in subpart E of part 1901 of this title apply to grants made under this part.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCatadioptric Optics for laser Doppler velocimeter applicationsIn the design of a laser velocimeter system, attention must be given to the performance of the optical elements in their two principal tasks: focusing laser radiation into the probe volume, and collecting the scattered light. For large aperture applications, custom lens design and fabrication costs, long optical path requirements, and chromatic aberration (for two color operation) can be problematic. The adaptation of low cost Schmidt-Cassegrain astronomical telescopes to perform these laser beam manipulation and scattered light collection tasks is examined. A generic telescope design is analyzed using ray tracing and Gaussian beam propagation theory, and a simple modification procedure for converting from infinite to near unity conjugate ratio operation with image quality near the diffraction limit was identified. Modification requirements and performance are predicted for a range of geometries. Finally, a 200-mm-aperture telescope was modified for f/10 operation; performance data for this modified optic for both laser beam focusing and scattered light collection tasks agree well with predictions.Document ID19900003588Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDunagan, Stephen E.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1989Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102210A-89201NAS 1.15:102210Accession Number90N12904Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900003588.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 160.12 Standard designations for rosin. ( a ) Rosin within the meaning of the act and the provisions in this part shall be designated as “gum rosin,” “wood rosin,” or “tall oil rosin,” as the case may be.
( b ) The designation “gum rosin” shall refer to the kind of rosin remaining after the distillation of gum spirits of turpentine from the oleoresin (gum) obtained from living pine trees.
( c ) The designation “wood rosin” shall refer to the kind of rosin recovered after the distillation of the volatile oil from the oleoresin within or extracted from pine wood by any suitable process, followed by any necessary further refinement.
( d ) The designation “tall oil rosin” shall refer to the kind of rosin remaining after the removal of the fatty acids from tall oil by fractional distillation, and having the characteristic form and appearance and other physical and chemical properties normal for other kinds of rosin.