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

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

May 28, 2009 

d0520 

Order 

 

May 28, 2009 

137610 

JANET K. HOLLINRAKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137610 

 COA: 274229 

Kent CC: 04-009472-NI 

MICHAEL HOLLINRAKE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2008 

judgment 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.
15.210 Forms.

Prescribed forms are not required to prepare solicitations described in this part. The following forms

may be used at the discretion of the contracting officer:

(a) Standard Form33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, and Optional Form308, Solicitation and OfferNegotiated Acquisition, may be used to issue RFPs and RFIs.

(b) Standard Form30, Amendment of Solicitation/ Modification of Contract, and Optional Form309,

Amendment of Solicitation, may be used to amend solicitations of negotiated contracts.

(c) Optional Form17, Offer Label, may be furnished with each request for proposal.

Parent topic: Subpart 15.2 - Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information
<PAGE>

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION



To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of United Asset Management
Corporation

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the related
consolidated statements of operations, of cash flows and of changes in
stockholders' equity present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of United Asset Management Corporation and its subsidiaries at December
31, 1997 and 1996, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997, in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles. These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management; our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our
audits of these statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
February 3, 1998
#### Dorothy Diamond et al., Appellants, v Gerald Acker, Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 17, 1979, which, after a hearing, determined that service of process had not been effected upon the defendant and (2) a further order of the same court, dated December 19, 1979, which, upon the aforesaid determination, *inter alia,*dismissed the complaint. Orders reversed, without costs or disbursements, and action remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith. The records of the Lydia E. Hall Hospital should have borne a certification or have been qualified by a witness as evidence before they were accepted by the court (see CPLR 4518, *547subd [c]; *Nelson v X-Ray Systems,*46 AD2d 995; *Ward v Thistleton,*32 AD2d 846). Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

The undersigned, Phillip C. Scott, Chief Financial Officer of SurgiCare,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certifies that:

(1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2004 (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.


Date:    May 14, 2004

By:                Phillip C. Scott
                   ------------------------------------------
                   Phillip C. Scott, Chief Accounting Officer



                                       26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties VI 1997 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000755908
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          16,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          9,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,147
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.77)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

Jesse Moline v 3M Company et al.

Case No. 8:20-cv-24957-MCR-GRJ

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:19-MD-2885

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned Parties 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that the claims of Plaintiff in the above 

captioned case be dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants, each party to bear its own costs. 

Dated: April 6, 2022. Respectfully submitted,

WATTS GUERRA LLP

/s/ Mikal C. Watts____

Mikal C. Watts (Pro Hac Vice)

Erin Rogiers (Pro Hac Vice)

5726 W. Hausman Rd., Suite 119

San Antonio, Texas 78249

Telephone: (210) 448-0500

Facsimile: (210) 448-0501

Email: mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

 erogiers@wattsguerra.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 8:20-cv-24957-MCR-GRJ Document 7 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3
Dated: April 6, 2022. THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC

/s/ Susan M. Robinson 

Susan M. Robinson, WV Bar No. 5169 

THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC

300 Summers Street, Suite 1380 (25301)

P.O. Box 3824 

Charleston, WV 25338

Telephone: (304) 414-1808

Facsimile: (304) 414-1801 

Email: srobinson@tcspllc.com

Counsel for Defendants, 3M Company, 3M 

Occupational Safety LLC, Aearo 

Technologies LLC, Aearo Holding, LLC, 

Aearo Intermediate, LLC and Aearo, LLC

Case 8:20-cv-24957-MCR-GRJ Document 7 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 5.1(F) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court 

Northern District of Florida, I hereby certify that on April 6, 2022, true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was electronically filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will automatically serve 

notice of this filing via e-mail to all registered counsel of record.

/s/ Mikal C. Watts____

Mikal C. Watts 

Case 8:20-cv-24957-MCR-GRJ Document 7 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3
§ 4280.439 Grant awards and agreements. The Agency will award and administer RBDG grants in accordance with applicable Departmental regulations, this subpart, and the unauthorized grant provisions of 7 CFR part 1951, subpart O. ( a ) *Letter of conditions.* The Agency will provide each approved applicant a letter of conditions, which sets out the conditions under which the grant will be made, including, but not limited to, an Agency grant agreement.
( b ) *Applicant's intent to meet conditions.* The applicant must complete, sign and return a “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions,” to the Agency. If applicant identifies certain conditions that the applicant cannot meet, the applicant may propose alternate conditions to the Agency. The Agency must concur with any changes proposed by the letter of conditions by the applicant before the any grant will be made.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Baldwin Piano & Organ Company:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in each of the registration
statements (File Nos. 33-53809, 333-65947 and 333-3775) on Form S-8 of Baldwin
Piano & Organ Company of our report dated February 23, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of Baldwin Piano & Organ Company and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period
ended December 31, 1997, including the related schedule, which report is
included in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Baldwin Piano &
Organ Company.



KPMG LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 29, 1999



                                      -64-
FHLMC Loan No. 940972379

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**MANAGEMENT FEE SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT**

 

This Management Fee Subordination Agreement (“Agreement”), made and entered into as of October 4, 2006, by and between NorthMarq Capital, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (“Lender”), Cascade Joint Venture, L.P., a Kansas limited partnership (“Borrower”), and Maxus Properties, Inc., a Missouri corporation (“Agent”).

 

**PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FACTS**

 

A.      Agent entered into a Management Agreement dated March 14, 2005 (“Management Agreement”) covering certain property in Topeka, Kansas, commonly known as Cascade Apartments, and which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (“Property”).

 

B.        Borrower owns or will own the Property and is the Owner under the Management Agreement, as defined therein.

 

C.        Borrower has secured a loan from Lender in the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Forty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($2,540,000.00) (“Loan”), which is or will be secured by a Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement covering the Property (“Mortgage”).

 

D.        As a condition to making the Loan to Borrower, Lender requires that the management fee to Agent not exceed four percent (4.0%) of the monthly gross receipts from the operation of the Property (“Management Fee”).

 

E.        The Management Agreement provides for a management fee to Agent equal to five percent (5.0%) of the monthly gross receipts from the operation of the Property (the excess one percent (1.0%) is hereinafter referred to as the “Excess Management Fee”).

 

----
exhibit10_1.htm


    
      

      

    

     

     

    Exhibit 10.1

     

    
 

    AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO

    EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

     

    This AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the
5th day of May, 2009, by and between AMERIS BANCORP, a Georgia
corporation (“Employer”), and C. JOHNSON HIPP, III, an
individual resident of the State of South Carolina (“Executive”).

     

    W I T N E S S E T H:

     

    WHEREAS, Employer and
Executive have entered into that certain Executive Employment Agreement dated as
of September 5, 2006, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Executive
Employment Agreement dated as of December 30, 2008 (as so amended, the
“Agreement”), and the parties wish to amend the Agreement as provided
herein;

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and agreements herein,
the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:

     

    1. Amendment
of Agreement.  Section 3 of the
Agreement is hereby amended by (i) deleting all references therein to “September
5, 2008” and substituting therefor “December 31, 2009” and (ii) deleting the
separate reference therein to “September 5” and substituting therefor “December
31”.

     

    2. Miscellaneous.  The existing
terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
except as such terms and conditions are specifically amended by, or conflict
with, the terms of this Amendment.  This Amendment shall be governed
by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of
Georgia, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles
thereof.  This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in
counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument.  Executed
counterparts may be delivered via facsimile transmission.

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive has executed
and delivered this Amendment, and Employer has caused this Amendment to be
executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer, all as of the day and
year first above written.

     

    AMERIS
BANCORP

    


    


    By:           /s/ Edwin W. Hortman,
Jr.                                                                

    Name:      Edwin W. Hortman,
Jr.

    Title:        President and Chief
Executive Officer

    


    


    

/s/ C. Johnson Hipp,
III                                                                

                 
C. JOHNSON HIPP, III
§ 4280.112 Applicant eligibility. To receive a RES or EEI grant under this subpart, an applicant must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. ( a ) *Type of applicant.* The applicant must be an agricultural producer or rural small business at the time of application.
( b ) *Ownership and control.* The applicant must at the time of application and, if an award is made, for the useful life of the project as described in the Financial Assistance Agreement: ( 1 ) Own the project; and
( 2 ) Own or control the site for the project. If the grantee does not maintain ownership of the project and ownership or control of the site, then grant funds may be recovered from the grantee by the Agency in accordance with Departmental Regulations.
( c ) *End Users.* If the controlling interest in the applicant entity is otherwise eligible and a legal transaction between two parties for the sale of energy in an open market is being proposed, the Agency will not consider the energy end-users as part of the analysis of the eligibility of the applicant. If the proposed end-user would be an ineligible applicant, such as an entity which is residential in nature or a non-profit entity, and the REAP applicant entity is a newly formed special-purpose entity with substantially the same ownership as the sole proposed end-user, then the REAP applicant entity is not eligible.
( d ) *Revenues and expenses.* The applicant must have available at the time of application satisfactory sources of revenue in an amount sufficient to provide for the operation, management, maintenance, and any debt service of the project for the useful life of the project. In addition, the applicant must control the revenues and expenses of the project, including its operation and maintenance. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the applicant may employ a qualified consultant under contract to manage revenues and expenses of the project and its operation and/or maintenance.
( e ) *Legal authority and responsibility.* Each applicant must have the legal authority necessary to apply for and carry out the purpose of the grant.
( f ) *Unique Entity Identifier (UEI).* All applicants must register for a UEI as part of the registration process. Generally, the UEI number is included on Standard Form-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.”
( g ) *System for Awards Management (SAM).* Unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110, the applicant must: ( 1 ) Be registered in the SAM prior to submitting an application;
( 2 ) Maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times while an application is pending and until final fund disbursement has been made.
§ 51.1146 U.S. No. 1 Russet. The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1 except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of discoloration. ( a ) For tolerances see § 51.1151.
( b ) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for “U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)” or “U.S. Grade A Juice” may be so specified in connection with the grade. (See §§ 51.1176-51.1179.)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK

MAHMOUD ELDICK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 213, Defendant's Motion for Leave to Appeal in

Forma Pauperis and Doc. 212, Defendant's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. This Court

will issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326, 123 S. Ct. 1029,

1034 (2003).

Here, Defendant argued that he pled guilty without realizing that he only faced a fiveyear, rather than twenty-year, maximum sentence. As discussed in the order at Doc. 209 and the

Report and Recommendation at Doc. 207, during the hearing, but before the ultimate acceptance

of the guilty plea, the Court repeatedly informed Defendant that the penalty he faced was only 5,

not 20, years on Count Two. Defendant repeatedly assured the Court that he understood. He

clearly acknowledged during the hearing (1) that he knew the penalty for Count Two was 5

Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 218 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK

years, (2) that he had discussed that fact and also the pros and cons of going to trial with his

counsel, and (3) that he knew that by pleading guilty he was giving up any defenses he might

have to the charges. Accordingly, Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the violation

of a constitutional right.

With regard to Doc. 213, under Fed. R. App. P. 24(1), a party seeking to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion with the district court, and the Court, under Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a)(4) may certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith and for that reason deny

the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons given above, the Court hereby certifies

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

likewise denied. Accordingly it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Doc. 212, the Motion for Certificate of Appealability, is denied. Doc. 213, the Motion to

Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis is also denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00038-MP-AK Document 218 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of TransMontaigne Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), each hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| |  | /s/DONALD H. ANDERSONDonald H. Anderson
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/RANDALL J. LARSONRandall J. Larson
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2003  

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This written statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed to be filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or for any other purpose.

10

---

QuickLinks
June 25, 2015

Mr. William Merkel

151 Rebecca Road Sunnyvale, TX 75182

Dear Mr. Merkel:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 12, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2246), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure