alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 7, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice 127273 & (72) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JAMES W. ZERRENNER, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 127273 COA: 246321 Kent CC: 97-010967-DO BONNIE S. ZERRENNER, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of July 14, 2005, the application for leave to appeal the Augu st 10, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant were held in abey ance pending the decision in Deyo v Deyo (Docket No. 126795). On order of the Court, the de cision having been i ssued on December 15, 2005, 474 Mich 952 (2005), th e application is again cons idered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal , we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We do not agree with th e Court of Appeals that defendant has an equitable claim of restitution based on uncompensated servi ces performed for plaintiff’s law firm. Plaintiff’s law firm was a separate asset, not a marital asset, which did not appreciate in value during the time of the par ties’ marriage as requi red by MCL 552.401. Because plaintiff’s law firm was not a marital asset, Postema v Postema , 189 Mich App 89 (1991), and similar cases on which the Cour t of Appeals relied cannot justify defendant’s claim to equitable restitution. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED. The application for l eave to appeal as cross-appellant is also considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented
should be reviewed by this Court.

W EAVER , J., states as follows:

I would deny leave to appeal as I wo uld not peremptorily reverse this case.

t0404 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.

April 7, 2006

Clerk
```

[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 32268]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-8]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0249; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-22]

 
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Panama City, Tyndall AFB, FL.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register April 1, 2010 that establishes Class 
E airspace at Tyndall AFB, Panama City, FL.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16331), Docket 
No. FAA-2010-0249; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-22. The FAA uses the 
direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where 
the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This 
direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
June 3, 2010. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice 
confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 27, 2010.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-13635 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2419 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2419

 To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam 
War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for 
                     the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2006

  Mr. Stevens (for himself, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Kerry) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam 
War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for 
                     the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor 
Center Deadline Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE FOR APPROVAL OF VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL VISITOR 
              CENTER.

    Section 6 of Public Law 96-297 (16 U.S.C. 431 note; 94 Stat. 827, 
117 Stat. 1348) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2) and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(2) Location.--The visitor center shall be located 
        underground in the triangular land area between Henry Bacon 
        Drive, 23rd Street, Constitution Avenue, and the Lincoln 
        Memorial in the District of Columbia.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Deadline for Approval.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, final approval of the visitor center shall occur not later than 
30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
April 1, 2003 



Mr. Terry Margolis,
President
Banta Healthcare Group
570 Enterprise Drive  
PO Box 806
Neenah, WI 54956  



Dear Terry: 



The purpose of this letter is to
confirm your promotion, effective March 15, 2003, as Sector President, Global Turnkey and
Healthcare Products, reporting directly to me. 



Your base salary will be $260,000 per
year, with a next annual merit review in December 2003. You will continue to participate
in Banta’s Economic Profit Incentive Plan (EPIP), and be eligible for a target bonus
of 50% of your base salary, subject to Banta’s financial results. You will also
participate in Banta’s Long Term Incentive Award Plan and be eligible for a target
bonus of 25% of your base pay, payable over a three-year period. Your EPIP percentage
breakdown is as follows: 



	Corporate:	25% of Opportunity
	75% Earnings per Share (EPS)
	25% Economic Profit (EP)
	
Business Groups:	75% of Opportunity
	Healthcare:	1/3
	Global Turnkey	2/3






The Group’s individual results
will be split 25% EP and 75% Operating Earnings. For 2003, the Global Turnkey portion of
your EPIP and LTIP bonus will be guaranteed. 



In addition to the EPIP and LTIP
charge, you will be entitled to participate in Banta’s Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (SERP). To provide you security in the event of a “change in
control” you will be offered a three-year Key Executive Employment and Severance
Agreement (KEESA). 



Banta will pay or reimburse you for
all moving expenses in accordance with Banta’s Tier I moving policy for executives.
Upon termination of your employment, Banta agrees to move you back to State College, PA,
and pay or reimburse you for all moving expenses in accordance with the above referenced
policy. 











Mr. Terry Margolis
Page 2  



Banta will provide you with paid
severance payments equal to one (1) year’s salary at your base monthly rate as of the
date of termination of your employment paid in equal monthly installments over 24 months
following such termination. If you are unable to find employment Banta will, on a
month-to-month basis, extend the severance agreement beyond the initial period up to 6
months for a total severance of 18 months, paid out over 30 months. 



Terry, as you know, I am very excited
and enthusiastic about you playing a larger role in management within the Corporation. I
look forward to your membership on the Executive Operating Committee and to continuing to
drive Banta to future growth and success. 



Warm regards, 



Stephanie A.
Streeter
President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 47,320

#### Dila Joan Ostrander, *Appellant,*v. Richard Dean Ostrander, *Appellee.*

(522 P. 2d 183)

Opinion filed May 11, 1974.

*Charles F. Forsyth*and *Clark M. Fleming,*of Erie, were on the brief for the appellant.

*Steven W. Rogers,*of Fredonia, was on the brief for the appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from a post-judgment order in a divorce case which denied the plaintiff’s wife motion increase child support and to modify the original decree to permit the plaintiff to mortgage certain real estate which had been awarded to plaintiff subjeot to a hen in favor of the defendant husband. On this appeal the plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred in not increasing child support. On appellate review this court will not disturb an order pertaining to child support absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. *(Thompson v. Thompson,*205 Kan. 630, 470 P. 2d 787.) On the evidentiary record before us we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. As her second point the plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the property settlement and decree to permit her to mortgage the real estate. In *Drummond v. Drummond,*209 Kan. 86, 495 P. 2d 994, we held that “a trial court after entering an original decree which determines a division of property has no continuing jurisdiction of that part of the decree and no power to modify that part of the decree.” In view of *Drummond*it is clear that the trial court was correct in holding that it had no jurisdiction to subordinate the defendant’s lien to the mortgage hen proposed by the plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal
Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person
for any other purpose.

         The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Orion
HealthCorp, Inc. (the "small business issuer"), hereby certifies as follows:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the small business issuer (the
"Report"), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the small
business issuer.

Dated this 13th day of November, 2006.


/s/ Stephen H. Murdock
 ---------------------------------------------
 Stephen H. Murdock, Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Accounting Officer)






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the small business issuer and
will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**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 onForm 10-Q of 155 East Tropicana, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company and155 East Tropicana Finance Corp., a Nevada corporation (collectively, the “Company”)for the three months ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Neil G. Kiefer, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Neil G. Kiefer                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Neil G. Kiefer,   Chief Executive Officer  November 10, 2006 |
|                                                         |

 

The foregoing certifications are beingfurnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and are not being filed as partof the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
§ 3430.908 Review criteria. *Evaluation criteria.* NIFA shall evaluate project proposals according to the following factors: ( a ) Potential for Advancing Quality of Technology Development, Applied Research, and/or Training/Significance of the Program.
( b ) Proposed Approach and Cooperative Linkages.
( c ) Institution Organization Capability and Capacity Building.
( d ) Key Personnel.
( e ) Budget and Cost-Effectiveness.
§ 361.7 Special provisions for Canadian-origin seed and screenings. ( a ) In addition to meeting the declaration and labeling requirements of § 361.2 and all other applicable provisions of this part, all Canadian-origin agricultural seed and Canadian-origin vegetable seed imported into the United States from Canada for seeding (planting) purposes or cleaning must be accompanied by a certificate of analysis issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or by a private seed laboratory accredited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Samples of seed shall be drawn using sampling methods comparable to those detailed in § 361.5 of this part. The seed analyst who examines the seed at the laboratory must be accredited to analyze the kind of seed covered by the certificate. ( 1 ) If the seed is being imported for seeding (planting) purposes, the certificate of analysis must verify that the seed meets the noxious weed seed tolerances of § 361.6. Such seed will not be subject to the sampling requirements of § 361.3(b).
( 2 ) If the seed is being imported for cleaning, the certificate of analysis must name the kinds of noxious weed seeds that are to be removed from the lot of seed. Seed being imported for cleaning must be consigned to a facility operated in accordance with § 361.8(a).
( b ) Coated or pelleted agricultural seed and coated or pelleted vegetable seed of Canadian origin may be imported into the United States if the seed was analyzed prior to being coated or pelleted and is accompanied by a certificate of analysis issued in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Screenings otherwise prohibited under this part may be imported from Canada if the screenings are imported for processing or manufacture and are consigned to a facility operating under a compliance agreement as provided by § 361.8(b).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0124)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MELVIN WOODARD,

Petitioner

v. Case No. 4:20cv302-MW/MAF

LPN GAYLORD,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 4. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, for all further proceedings. The 

Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 13, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00302-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:20-cv-00302-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 3201.77 Asphalt restorers. ( a ) *Definition.* Products designed to seal, protect, or restore poured asphalt and concrete surfaces.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 68 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than April 4, 2013, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased asphalt restorers. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased asphalt restorers.
[77 FR 20289, Apr. 4, 2012]
#### § 3430.800 Applicability.

The regulations in this subpart apply to the program authorized under section 1473F of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as added by section 7138 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, (7 U.S.C. 3319i).
§ 42.120 Description and qualification. Skip lot sampling and inspection are special procedures for inspecting stationary lots in which only one-half or one-fourth of the lots offered for inspection are formally inspected. Skip lot sampling and inspection procedures may be instituted only when all of the following conditions are met: ( a ) When authorized by the Administrator and acceptable to the user and producer, if different from the user.
( b ) When inspection is origin inspection (see § 42.102).
( c ) When all lots can be expected to be of essentially the same quality.
( d ) When lots from the producer are currently on, or eligible to be on, either normal or reduced inspection.
§ 27.96 Quotations in bona fide spot markets. The price or value and differences between the price or value of grades and staple lengths of cotton shall be based solely upon the official cotton standards of the United States and shall be the actual commercial value or price and differences as determined by the sale of spot cotton in such spot market. Quotations shall be determined and maintained in each designated spot market by the Cotton Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, as follows: ( a ) In spot markets designated to determine differences for the settlement of futures contracts, the Cotton Division will on each business day determine and quote by bale volume the prices or values of base qualities which are deliverable on any active futures contracts, as well as the differences for all other qualities deliverable on such contracts. The prices or differences for non-deliverable qualities will be determined and quoted by bale volume in each such spot market for those qualities normally produced or traded in that particular market.
( b ) In spot markets not designated to determine differences for the settlement of futures contracts, the Cotton Division will on each business day determine and quote by bale volume the prices or differences for all qualities of cotton normally produced or traded in each such spot market.
[53 FR 29327, Aug. 4, 1988]
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 Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A2 for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Aichun Li, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.








Date:  October 15, 2010





/s/ Aichun Li





Aichun Li


Chief Financial Officer
§ 3560.404 Final loan payments. ( a ) *Payoff statements.* At the borrower's request, the Agency will provide a statement indicating the pay off amount necessary to pay the borrower's account in full.
( b ) *Final payments.* A borrower's final loan payment must include repayment of all outstanding obligations to the Agency. ( 1 ) Any supervised funds being held by the Agency will be applied to the borrower's account or, at the borrower's option, will be returned to the borrower following acceptance of final payment on all outstanding obligations.
( 2 ) If a balance due remains on a borrower's account after Agency acceptance of a final payment, due to borrower error or fraud or Agency error, the Agency will initiate collection action in accordance with the unauthorized assistance collection procedures described in subpart O of this part.
( c ) *Final payment loans.* Borrowers with loans for which the Agency approved an amortization period that exceeded the term of the loan may request a loan to finance the final payment in accordance with the requirements of § 3560.74.
( d ) *Loan prepayment requests.* If prepayment of an Agency loan is requested, the applicable preservation requirements of subpart N of this part, including the execution of any appropriate restrictive-use agreements, must be met prior to the Agency's acceptance of a final loan payment under the prepayment request.
( e ) *Payment forms.* Final payments may be made by cashier's check, certified check, money order, bank draft, or other withdrawal instruments approved by the Agency. ( 1 ) If borrowers use forms of payment requiring special handling, the borrower is responsible for the cost of the special handling.
( 2 ) When payment is provided in a form that is not the equivalent of cash, the Agency will consider the payment to be received at the time the payment has been converted to cash and funds have been transferred to the Agency.
( f ) *Release of security instruments.* The Agency will release security instruments, subject to applicable restrictive-use agreements referenced in subpart N of this part, when full payment of all outstanding obligations to the Agency has been received, accepted, and the funds have been transferred to the Agency. ( 1 ) If the Agency and the borrower agree to settle an account for less than the full amount owed, the Agency will release security instruments when the borrower has paid in full all agreed upon obligations.
( 2 ) Recording costs for the release of the security instruments will be the responsibility of the borrower, except where state law requires the mortgagee to record or file the satisfaction.
( g ) *Special circumstances—Refund of entire principal.* If the entire principal of the loan is refunded after the loan is closed, the borrower must pay interest from the date of the note to the date of receipt of the refund.