alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130096 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130096 

 COA: 265708 

Berrien CC: 2005-401388-FH 

LESLIE ALLEN FROEBER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, 2005 

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. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

s0424 

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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
§ 5001.301 Beginning the application process. ( a ) The lender must file applications and related documents through the Agency online application system located at *https://www.rd.usda.gov/onerdguaranteed .*
( b ) The lender may complete either a request for preliminary eligibility review in accordance with § 5001.302 or a full application in accordance with §§ 5001.303 through 5001.307, as applicable, to begin the process for obtaining a guaranteed loan. The Agency encourages, but does not require, lenders to file requests for preliminary eligibility reviews in order to obtain Agency comments before submitting a full Application.
#### §§ 3570.268-3570.271 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.350 Eligibility and completeness.

The Agency will not consider any application that is not complete or that is submitted by an Applicant that does not meet the eligibility criteria described in subpart C of this part. The Agency at its sole discretion, may request from an Applicant additional information concerning eligibility criteria or easily completed portions of the application in order to facilitate consideration of its application.
EGU MACT RIA - Interagency comments on Ch 2 and 3
12/14/2011 05:32 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Bob, Attached are interagency comments on the redline versions of Chapters 2

and 3 of the RIA.

Regards,
Cortney

Chapter 3_CostEconomicEnergy_1209_Inter agencyCommentsunderEO13563.docx

Chapter 2_ElectricPowerSectorProfile_12 09_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563.doc
#### In the Matter of Esperanza V. Strong et al., Respondents, v Mitchell S. Chmielewski, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to invalidate a petition designating Mitchell S. Chmielewski as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September *5309, 1980 for the public office of Representative to the United States Congress from the 12th Congressional District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, .Kings County, dated August 28, 1980, which, *inter alia,*granted the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. By order dated August 22, 1980 *(Matter of Strong v Chmielewski,*77 AD2d 943) this court remanded the instant matter to Special Term to give the appellant the opportunity to prove that certain signatures on his designating petition which were invalidated as forgeries were, in fact, valid. The appellant has failed to do this. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATTHEW LEVI FAISON, JR.,

Inmate No. 038634,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5828/LAC/EMT

GLOBAL EXPERTS OUTSOURCING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

September 25, 2020 (ECF No. 3). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the timely filed objections (ECF No. 4).

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

3) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case No.: 3:20cv5828/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05828-LC-EMT Document 5 Filed 10/07/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close

this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2020.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5828/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05828-LC-EMT Document 5 Filed 10/07/20 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC LAW 108–362—OCT. 25, 2004 118 STAT. 1703

Public Law 108–362

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the supply of pancreatic islet

cells for research, and to provide for better coordination of Federal efforts and

information on islet cell transplantation.

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 ‘‘Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION.

Section 371 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 273)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) Pancreata procured by an organ procurement organization

and used for islet cell transplantation or research shall be counted

for purposes of certification or recertification under subsection (b).’’.

SEC. 3. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON PANCREATIC ISLET CELL

TRANSPLANTATION.

Section 429 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c–

3) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) In each annual report prepared by the Diabetes Mellitus

Interagency Coordinating Committee pursuant to subsection (c),

the Committee shall include an assessment of the Federal activities

and programs related to pancreatic islet cell transplantation. Such

assessment shall, at a minimum, address the following:

‘‘(1) The adequacy of Federal funding for taking advantage

of scientific opportunities relating to pancreatic islet cell

transplantation.

‘‘(2) Current policies and regulations affecting the supply

of pancreata for islet cell transplantation.

‘‘(3) The effect of xenotransplantation on advancing pancreatic islet cell transplantation.

‘‘(4) The effect of United Network for Organ Sharing policies

regarding pancreas retrieval and islet cell transplantation.

‘‘(5) The existing mechanisms to collect and coordinate

outcomes data from existing islet cell transplantation trials.

‘‘(6) Implementation of multiagency clinical investigations

of pancreatic islet cell transplantation.

Reports.

42 USC 201 note.

Pancreatic

Islet Cell

Transplantation

Act of 2004.

Oct. 25, 2004

[H.R. 3858]

118 STAT. 1704 PUBLIC LAW 108–362—OCT. 25, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3858 (S. 518):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–726 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–387 accompanying S. 518 (Comm. on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Oct. 5, considered and passed House.

Oct. 8, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

‘‘(7) Recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions as the Committee considers appropriate to increase

the supply of pancreata available for islet cell transplantation.’’.

Approved October 25, 2004.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KENNETH RICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv387-MW/HTC

MARK INCH, SECRETARY OF 

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Recommendation. ECF No. 17. Upon consideration, no objections having been filed 

by the parties,1

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 17, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are 

1 This Court previously granted two extensions for Plaintiff to file objections to the report 

and recommendation. See ECF Nos. 22 and 24. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has filed no 

objections, nor has he requested additional time to do so. 
2

DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious for Plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial 

process.” The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close the file.

SO ORDERED on May 26, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-003-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (3 work hours x $85/hour) $ 255

Parts per airplane $ + 0

Cost per airplane $ 255

Number of U.S.-registered airplanes 

x

 83

Total fleet cost $21,165

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### § 4288.103 Review or appeal rights.

A person may seek a review of an Agency decision or appeal to the National Appeals Division in accordance with 7 CFR part 11 of this title.
#### § 3570.88 Management assistance.

Grant recipients will be supervised to the extent necessary to ensure that facilities are constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications and to ensure that funds are expended for approved purposes.
# L_2021131EN.01000101.xml

| 16.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 131/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 131/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/614

of 7 April 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Bayramiç Beyazı’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Bayramiç Beyazı’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Bayramiç Beyazı’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Bayramiç Beyazı’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Bayramiç Beyazı’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Bayramiç Beyazı’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6 – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 435, 16.12.2020, p. 14.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Investors Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 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: May 10, 2007
    /s/ Robert M. CashillRobert M. CashillPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 36
Order on Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Northern District of Florida

United States of America

v. Case No.: 1:91cr1032-005/MMP
USM No.:

Thomas D. Young _

Date of Original Judgment: May 29, 1992

Date of Previous Amended Judgment: May 6, 2008
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

Order on Motion for Sentence Reduction

Cl The Defendant 1 Director of the Bureau of Prisons @ the court has moved
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment previously imposed
based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered and made retroactive
by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u). Having considered
such motion, and taking into account the policy statement set forth at USSG §1B1.10 and the
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they are applicable, the court
orders that the motion is:

(DENIED: M GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment.
(as reflected in the last judgment issued) of __292 _ months is reducedto___235_

(Complete Part I, II or III of Attachment, as applicable)

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Order Date: Mteuchel Z 20
M. Casey Rodgers
Effective Date: Chief United States District Judge
(if different from order date) Printed Name and Title of Judge

Rect 10° LALsDeFIngeH008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Khalil Curtis, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 434]

*317Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at hearing; Daniel E FitzGerald, J., at plea and sentence) rendered October 16, 2003, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police had reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant based upon his sudden, unprovoked flight from a lawfully stopped vehicle, shortly after the driver, upon the approach of the police, had made a suspicious gesture in defendant’s direction strongly indicating an effort to secrete something *(see e.g. People v Rivera,*286 AD2d 235 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 760 [2002]). Prior to the flight, the police had a founded suspicion of criminality that warranted a common-law inquiry of defendant *(see e.g. People v Williams,*300 AD2d 684, 685 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 654 [2003]), whose flight elevated the officers’ level of suspicion to the point where they were justified in pursuing him. The record also supports the court’s alternative finding that defendant’s independent act of discarding the cocaine during the foot chase was a strategic, calculated decision and not a spontaneous reaction to the police activity *(see People v Boodle,*47 NY2d 398, 402 [1979], *cert denied*444 US 969 [1979]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Malone, JJ.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Patricia G. Fritz, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2019

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, June 5, 2020, upon consideration of Petitioner’s

application for reconsideration, the application is denied.
2006-0528.

#### State v. Gray.

Greene App. No. 04CA129, 2006-Ohio-40. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Resnick, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.1




                                  Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C. ss.1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Datascension  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on   Form   10-KSB   for   the   year  ended  December 31, 2006  as
filed   with   the  Securities and Exchange Commission  on  the  date   therein
specified  (the "Report")  "Report"),  I,  D.  Scott  Kincer,  Chief  Executive
Officer and  Principal  Accounting Officer  of  the  Company, certify  pursuant
to  18  U.S.C. ss.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) 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.

                                     /s/ D. Scott Kincer
                                     --------------------------------
                                     DAVID SCOTT KINCER,
				     Chief Executive Officer
                                     and Principal Accounting Officer

Dated: April 2, 2007
#### §§ 3570.94-3570.99 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Robert B. Cole, Appellant, v Walter Fogg, as Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 15, 1980 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to vacate respondent’s determination in disciplinary proceedings taken against him while an inmate at the Eastern Correctional Facility. Judgment affirmed, without costs. (See CPLR 7804, subd [e].) Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133054(26) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133054 

 COA: 273734 

Jackson CC: 05-006863-FH 

WALTER JAMES KYES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's April 24, 

2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
|  |  | **Food Safety and Inspection    Service    United States Department of Agriculture    Washington, D.C. 20250-3700** |
|--|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

##### Consumer Education and Information

##### Updated: January 07, 2000

## The Food Safety Educator

*Note: To read and print a **PDF** file, youmust have the Adobe�Acrobat�Readerinstalled on your PC. You can download a version suitable for your system, free of charge,from the Adobe Home Page.

**1999**

- Volume 4, Number 3/4
- Volume 4, Number 2
- Volume 4, Number 1

**1998**

- Volume 3, Number 4
- Volume 3, Number 3
- Volume 3, Number 2  (PDF)
- Volume 3, Number 1    (PDF)

**1997***(Volumes I and 2 are in html format.)*

- Volume 2, Number 4: Fall
- Volume 2, Number 3: Summer 
- Volume 2, Number 2: Spring 
- Volume 2, Number 1: Winter

####  1996

- Volume 1, Number 3: Fall
- Volume 1, Number 2: Summer
- Volume 1, Number 1: January

*
Reminder: Some informationin earlier volumes of this newsletter, such as names of personnel, phone numbers, emailaddresses, and Web site addresses, may have changed. Before using information from thispublication, special attention should be given to the publication date.

****

**For Further Information Contact:**FSIS Food Safety Education StaffDianne Durant, EditorPhone: (202) 720-7943Fax: (202) 720-9063E-mail: [email protected]

*Educator* Menu | FSIS HomePage | USDA Home Page
*