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

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

December 23, 2013

h1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147919

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147919

COA: 314162

Emmett CC: 12

- 003615

- FH

ANTHONY DEAN LANE, 12

- 003617

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money.       As prescribed in 15.408(h), insert the following provision:          Facilities Capital Cost of Money (June 2003)                                       (a) 						            Facilities capital cost of money will be an allowable cost under the contemplated contract, if the criteria for allowability in FAR 31.205-10(b) are met. One of the allowability criteria requires the prospective Contractor to propose facilities capital cost of money in its offer.                                          (b) 						            If the prospective Contractor does not propose this cost, the resulting contract will include the clause Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money.                                 (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.215 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arkadiusz Borkowski, Appellant.

[816 NYS2d 398]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), imposed September 19, 2003, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Krausman, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
52.247-39 F.o.b. Inland Point, Country of

Importation.

As prescribed in 47.303-11(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the

delivery term is f.o.b. inland point, country of importation:

F.o.b. Inland Point, Country of Importation (Apr 1984)

(a) The term "f.o.b. inland point, country of importation," as used in this clause, means free of

expense to the Government, on board the indicated type of conveyance of the carrier, delivered to

the specified inland point where the consignee’s facility is located.

(b) The Contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance

with carrier requirements to protect the goods;

(2)

(i) Deliver, in or on the inland carrier’s conveyance, the shipment in good order and condition to the

specified inland point where the consignee’s facility is located; and

(ii) Pay and bear all applicable charges incurred up to the point of delivery, including transportation

costs; export, import, or other fees or taxes; costs of landing; wharfage costs; customs duties and

costs of certificates of origin; consular invoices; and other documents that may be required for

importation; and

(3) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods until their arrival on or in the carrier’s

conveyance at the specified inland point.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20645 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
FILOGONIO VELASQUEZ MEJIA, also known as Fernando Mejia Velasquez, also known as Filogonio Mejia Velasquez, also known as Fernando Mejia

Barrera, also known as Filogonio Velasquez

- Mejia, also known as Miguel A. Hernandez, also known as Miguel Hernandez

- Mejia, also known as Miguel Angel Hernandez,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 389

- 1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Filogonio Velasquez Mejia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20645 Document: 00513556848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016No. 15

- 20645

2 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Velasquez Mejia h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-20645 Document: 00513556848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.8 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply. ( a ) The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200 on December 26, 2013. In 2 CFR 400.1, the Department adopted OMB's guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by 2 CFR part 400, as the Department's policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards. As a result, this regulation contains references to 2 CFR part 200 as it has regulatory effect for the Department's programs and activities.”
( b ) Several other Federal statutes and/or regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review or to research project grants awarded under this part. These include but are not limited to:
2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. 2 CFR part 180 and Part 417—OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-Wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and USDA Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension. 7 CFR part 1c—USDA Implementation of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 7 CFR 1.1—USDA Implementation of Freedom of Information Act. 7 CFR part 3—USDA Implementation of OMB Circular A-129 Regarding Debt Collection. 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—USDA Implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 7 CFR part 3407—NIFA procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act. 29 U.S.C. 794, section 504—Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR part 15B (USDA implementation of statute), prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs. 35 U.S.C. 200 *et seq.*—Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR part 401).
[79 FR 75997, Dec. 19, 2014]
1

Ogulei, David

From: Warchol, Dennis <dennis.warchol@veolia.com>

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 11:40 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: Veolia's Waste Analysis Plan

Attachments: Veolia'sWAP.pdf

David, 

Attached pursuant to your request is the current Veolia Waste Analysis Plan. Please call if you have any 

questions.
# L_2015277EN.01006001.xml

| 22.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/60

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 140/2014 of 13 February 2014 approving the active substance spinetoram, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 44 of 14 February 2014
  )

On page 39, in Annex II concerning the amendment to be made to Part B of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, in the seventh column headed ‘Specific provisions’, in the fifth paragraph:

for:

‘by 31 December 2014
  ’,

read:

‘within 6 months after the adoption of pertinent guidance on the assessment of isomers’.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



April 29, 2011

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/    Matthieu Bucaille
|Matthieu Bucaille       
|Chief Financial Officer 



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-013-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.R.

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

	FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	William Trantham is attempting to appeal the trial court’s order disqualifying him from representing appellant Jerry Runnels in the underlying child custody proceeding.2  We dismiss Trantham’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

	Generally, an appeal is available only to parties named of record in the trial court.3  In this case, the only two parties named of record in the trial court were Christy Wortman and Jerry Runnels.  Trantham was not a party; he was merely Runnels’s attorney.

	Trantham argues, however, that he has standing to appeal the disqualification order because he is named in the order, is bound by it, and is aggrieved by it.  We disagree.  Runnels, not Trantham, is aggrieved by the trial court’s order because the order precludes Runnels from being represented in the underlying case by the attorney of his choice (Trantham).4  Further, the controversy over who can represent Runnels is between him and Wortman, not between Wortman and Trantham.5  Accordingly, we dismiss Trantham’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.6

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  May 24, 2007
# 42.1302 Suspension of work.

A *suspension* of work under a *construction* or architect-engineer contract *may* be ordered by the *contracting officer* for a reasonable period of time. If the *suspension* is unreasonable, the contractor *may* submit a written *claim* for increases in the cost of performance, excluding profit.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 42.13 - Suspension of Work, Stop-Work Orders, and Government Delay of Work
Page 1 of 2

1

See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 5:94cr5026/LAC

RICHARD A. THOMAS

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 302) which this court construes as

a request for a certificate of appealability.1 Defendant appeals the court’s denial of his

Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. 301). Unless a certificate of appealability is issued, the

defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying a Rule 60(b) motion.

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003).

A certificate of appealability should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)

motion in a habeas case unless the petitioner/defendant shows, at a minimum, that it is

debatable among jurists of reason whether the district court abused its discretion, see

Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097 (11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a

60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.”). Because the court finds the defendant has not

made the requisite showing, his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Defendant has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 306). The

court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith and he is not otherwise entitled to so

proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Therefore, his motion for leave to so proceed is

DENIED, and he shall pay the $455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

Case 5:94-cr-05026-LC-MD Document 308 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:96cr57/RV; 3:03cv2/RV/MD

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2006.

s/L.A Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:94-cr-05026-LC-MD Document 308 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I, Nidhi
H. Andalon, Chief Financial Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:





(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and





(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      February 12, 2009
                    /s/       NIDHI
      ANDALONNidhi
      AndalonPrincipal
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 1061 Kersten Amendment to Employment Agreement


		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			February 27, 2018
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Jeffrey Kersten
		

		
			17672 Laurel Park Drive N.
		

		
			Livonia, MI 48152
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Re:  Amendment to Employment Agreement With Respect to Vesting of LTI Awards 
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Dear Jeff,
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Reference is made to the Employment Agreement, dated as of August 31, 2016, between you and Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC (the “Employment Agreement”).
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			This is to confirm that, effective the date hereof, Section 4.7 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety, to read as follows:
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			“4.7Accelerated Vesting of Equity and LTI Awards.  Notwithstanding anything in the 2010 Plan or any award agreement issued thereunder to the contrary, all then outstanding awards granted to the Employee pursuant to the 2010 Plan, including equity-based awards, performance awards (payable in cash and/or stock) and awards granted prior to the Effective Date (the “2010 Plan Awards”), shall immediately become fully vested upon the consummation of a Change in Control (as defined below) (assuming, in the case of each performance award, target level performance for the entire performance period (without proration of the amount payable thereto). For purposes of this Agreement, “Change in Control” shall be defined as set forth in Section 2.6 of the 2010 Plan on the Effective Date of this Agreement.”
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Except as provided by this letter, the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing by countersigning this letter below and returning it to me.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Regards,
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			/s/ James C. Gouin
		

		
			James C. Gouin
		

		
			Chief Executive Officer
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Acknowledged and agreed:
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			/s/ Jeffrey Kersten
		

		
			Jeffrey Kersten
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Date: February 27, 2018
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2835 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather footwear for persons 

other than men or women. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain leather footwear 

for persons other than men or women. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN LEATHER FOOTWEAR FOR PERSONS 

4 OTHER THAN MEN OR WOMEN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2835 IS 

‘‘ 9902.13.96 Other footwear with uppers 

of leather or composition 

leather, for persons other 

than for men or women 

(provided for in subheading 

6405.10.00) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 58.937 Physical requirements for evaporated milk. ( a ) *Flavor.* The product shall possess a sweet, pleasing and desirable flavor with not more than a definite cooked flavor. It shall be free from scorched, oxidized or other objectionable tastes and odors.
( b ) *Body and texture.* The product shall be of uniform consistency and appearance. It shall be smooth and free from fat separation, lumps, clots, gel formation, coarse milk solids precipitate or sedimentation and extraneous material.
( c ) *Color.* The color shall be of a natural white or light cream.
( d ) *Degree of burn-on.* The interior walls of the container shall not show excessive burn-on of product (product fused to more than 75 percent of the inner surface of the can).
( e ) *Keeping quality.* Samples incubated at 90-100 °F shall show no sensory, chemical or microbiological deterioration after seven days.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

Calvin C. Thomas 

P. 0. Box 92

Montezuma Creek, UT 84534

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

September 30, 2016 

In Reply 

Refer To: 

AIR-3 

NU 05-01 

Subject: McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility Final PSD Permit Decision 

Dear Mr. Thomas: 

You are receiving this letter for one of the following reasons: 

1) You provided timely written comments or oral testimony to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (BP A) regarding the proposed Clean Air Act Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit amendment for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil

Production Facility (MCU Facility), an existing oil and gas production operation that is

owned, in partnership with Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Company, and operated by the

Resolute Natural Resources Company (Resolute); or

2) You requested notice of the final permit decision.

Enclosed please find the final permit decision, which includes the final PSD permit amendment 

and our responses to public comments, and our notice announcing the final permit decision. The 

final PSD permit amendment, our responses to public comments, and other key documents 

relevant to the final permit are also available through a link at our website, 

http://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/prevention-significant-deterioration-psd-permits-issuedregion-9, or at http://www.regulations.gov (search: EPA-R09-0AR-2014-0785). 

In accordance with 40 CFR 124.15, this permit will become effective thirty (30) days after the 

EPA has provided notice of the final decision, unless the permit is timely appealed. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 124.19, any person who commented on the proposed permit or participated in the public 

hearing on the proposed permit may appeal the decision and permit conditions to the 

Environmental Appeals Board (BAB) within 30 days after the EPA has provided notice of the 

final permit decision. Any person who failed to file comments or failed to participate in the 

public hearing on the proposed PSD permit revision may file an appeal with the BAB only 

regarding changes from the proposed to the final permit decision. 
If you have any questions about this final action, please do not hesitate to contact Shaheerah 

Kelly of the Air Permits Office at (415) 947-4156 or r9airpermits@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure 

2
#### § 62.214 Voluntary participation.

Applying for services, or enrollment in any service program, is voluntary. Once an applicant receives a service or is accepted into a program, compliance with that service or program's terms is mandatory unless the applicant withdraws its application as provided in § 62.203 or participation is denied, suspended, cancelled, or rejected subject to the terms of § 62.210.
52.247-38 F.o.b. Inland Carrier, Point of

Exportation.

As prescribed in 47.303-10(c), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when the

delivery term is f.o.b. inland carrier, point of exportation:

F.o.b. Inland Carrier, Point of Exportation (Feb 2006)

(a) The term "f.o.b. inland carrier, point of exportation," as used in this clause, means free of

expense to the Government, on board the conveyance of the inland carrier, delivered to the specified

point of exportation.

(b) The Contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance

with carrier requirements to protect the goods and to ensure assessment of the lowest applicable

transportation charge;

(2) Prepare and distribute commercial bills of lading or other transportation receipt;

(3)

(i) Deliver the shipment in good order and condition in or on the conveyance of the carrier on the

date or within the period specified; and

(ii) Pay and bear all applicable charges, including transportation costs, to the point of delivery

specified in the contract;

(4) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery of the

shipment to the point of delivery in the contract; and

(5) At the Government’s request and expense, assist in obtaining the documents required for-

(i) Exportation; or

(ii) Importation at destination.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]