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

October 26, 2009 

d1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

138202(25) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138202 

 COA: 287595 

St. Clair CC: 05-001460-FH; 

05-002669-FC 

ALBERT MARQUE-ELLIS DENNIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s August 6, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*February 8, 2008*

[Cite as *02/0812008 Case Announcements,*2008-Ohio-469.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2007-0758.

#### Angel v. Reed.

Geauga App. No. 2005-G-2669, 2007-Ohio-1069. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Geauga County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for continuance of oral argument, scheduled for March 25, 2008,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.
#### § 745.118 Applications and proposals lacking definite plans for involvement of human subjects.

Certain types of applications for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts are submitted to Federal departments or agencies with the knowledge that subjects may be involved within the period of support, but definite plans would not normally be set forth in the application or proposal. These include activities such as institutional type grants when selection of specific projects is the institution's responsibility; research training grants in which the activities involving subjects remain to be selected; and projects in which human subjects' involvement will depend upon completion of instruments, prior animal studies, or purification of compounds. Except for research waived under § 745.101(i) or exempted under § 745.104, no human subjects may be involved in any project supported by these awards until the project has been reviewed and approved by the IRB, as provided in this policy, and certification submitted, by the institution, to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research.
§ 850.2 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to: ( 1 ) DOE offices responsible for operations or activities that involve present or past exposure, or the potential for exposure, to beryllium at DOE facilities;
( 2 ) DOE contractors with operations or activities that involve present or past exposure, or the potential for exposure, to beryllium at DOE facilities; and
( 3 ) Any current DOE employee, DOE contractor employee, or other worker at a DOE facility who is or was exposed or potentially exposed to beryllium at a DOE facility.
( b ) This part does not apply to: ( 1 ) Beryllium articles; and
( 2 ) DOE laboratory operations that meet the definition of laboratory use of hazardous chemicals in 29 CFR 1910.1450, Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemical in Laboratories.
§ 960.5-2-1 Population density and distribution. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall be located such that, during repository operation and closure, ( 1 ) the expected average radiation dose to members of the public within any highly populated area will not be likely to exceed a small fraction of the limits allowable under the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(1), and
( 2 ) the expected radiation dose to any member of the public in an unrestricted area will not be likely to exceed the limit allowable under the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(1).
( b ) *Favorable conditions.* ( 1 ) A low population density in the general region of the site.
( 2 ) Remoteness of site from highly populated areas.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) High residential, seasonal, or daytime population density within the projected site boundaries.
( 2 ) Proximity of the site to highly populated areas, or to areas having at least 1,000 individuals in an area 1 mile by 1 mile as defined by the most recent decennial count of the U.S. census.
( d ) *Disqualifying conditions.* A site shall be *disqualified* if— ( 1 ) Any surface facility of a repository would be located in a highly populated area; or
( 2 ) Any surface facility of a repository would be located adjacent to an area 1 mile by 1 mile having a population of not less than 1,000 individuals as enumerated by the most recent U.S. census; or
( 3 ) The DOE could not develop an emergency preparedness program which meets the requirements specified in DOE Order 5500.3 (Reactor and Non-Reactor Facility Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Response Program for Department of Energy Operations) and related guides or, when issued by the NRC, in 10 CFR part 60, subpart I, “Emergency Planning Criteria.”
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 523 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 523

Expressing disapproval of any act of the President to grant to himself 
    or any member of his family, including those related solely by 
   marriage, a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2017

    Ms. Bass (for herself, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Barragan, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Mr. Delaney, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Gallego, Mr. 
Gutierrez, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, 
  Ms. Lee, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. McGovern, Mr. 
 Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Moore, Ms. Blunt Rochester, Mr. 
Sherman, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Richmond, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. 
 Pallone, Ms. Fudge, Ms. Adams, Mr. Evans, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. 
Butterfield, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, 
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mrs. Beatty, Ms. Wilson of Florida, 
 Mr. Soto, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Judy 
 Chu of California, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Hastings) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing disapproval of any act of the President to grant to himself 
    or any member of his family, including those related solely by 
   marriage, a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United 
                                States.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the 
President granting to himself or any member of his family, including 
those related solely by marriage, any reprieve or pardon, or any 
commutation of a sentence, for any offense against the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 950.30 General.

The parties, i.e., the sponsor and the Department, shall include provisions in the Standby Support Contract that specify the procedures set forth in this subpart for the resolution of disputes under a Standby Support Contract. Sections 950.31 and 950.32 address disputes involving covered events; §§ 950.33 and 950.34 address disputes involving covered costs; and §§ 950.36 and 950.37 address disputes involving other contract matters.
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 41 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
Amendment To Current Approved

Construction Work Plan

Amendment #_________________                 Borrower Designation ____________________

Work Plan Period_________________

Change(s) Proposed

Reason(s) for Change(s)

Method of Financing

Loan Funds____________________

General Funds_________________

Contributions in Aid__________

Status of Borrowers Environmental Report______________________________

Estimated Cost_______________________________________________________

Engineering Support Attached_________________________________________

Registered Engineer__________________________________________________

  (as required)(signature)              (P.E. number)

Requested By____________________________  Date_______________________

  Manager

Approved By_____________________________  Date_______________________

RUS, GFR

Subject to BER approval?Yes _____No _____

Status of Construction:______________________________________________
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Altair International
Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan M. Smith, Principal Executive 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: August 17, 2016 |  | /s/ Alan M. Smith      
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | Alan M. Smith          
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6448

WILLIAM RAY VAWTER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; JUANITA

BAKER; HAZEL KEITH; JOHN DOE, various John

and/or Jane Does,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-96-121-5-CT-BO)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ray Vawter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Vawter v. Freeman, No. CA96-121-5-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 600.243 Enforcement. ( a ) *Remedies for noncompliance.* If a grantee or subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of an award, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, an assurance, in a State plan or application, a notice of award, or elsewhere, the awarding agency may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate in the circumstances: ( 1 ) Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the grantee or subgrantee or more severe enforcement action by the awarding agency,
( 2 ) Disallow (that is, deny both use of funds and matching credit for) all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance,
( 3 ) Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current award for the grantee's or subgrantee's program,
( 4 ) Withhold further awards for the program, or
( 5 ) Take other remedies that may be legally available.
( b ) *Hearings, appeals.* In taking an enforcement action, the awarding agency will provide the grantee or subgrantee an opportunity for such hearing, appeal, or other administrative proceeding to which the grantee or subgrantee is entitled under any statute or regulation applicable to the action involved.
( c ) *Effects of suspension and termination.* Costs of grantee or subgrantee resulting from obligations incurred by the grantee or subgrantee during a suspension or after termination of an award are not allowable unless the awarding agency expressly authorizes them in the notice of suspension or termination or subsequently. Other grantee or subgrantee costs during suspension or after termination which are necessary and not reasonably avoidable are allowable if: ( 1 ) The costs result from obligations which were properly incurred by the grantee or subgrantee before the effective date of suspension or termination, are not in anticipation of it, and, in the case of a termination, are noncancellable, and,
( 2 ) The costs would be allowable if the award were not suspended or expired normally at the end of the funding period in which the termination takes effect.
( d ) *Relationship to debarment and suspension.* The enforcement remedies identified in this section, including suspension and termination, do not preclude grantee or subgrantee from being subject to “Debarment and Suspension” under E.O. 12549 (see § 600.235).
[53 FR 8045, 8087, Mar. 11, 1988. Redesignated at 59 FR 53264, Oct. 21, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 7166, Feb. 26, 1996]
#### § 1201.102 Exceptions.

DOT Headquarters may grant exceptions to Part 1201 on a case-by-case basis. Such exceptions will be granted only as determined by the Secretary of Transportation.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128944 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: 128944 COA: 261608 Wayne CC: 04-004963-01 CURTIS FORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the a pplication for leave to appeal the May 6, 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.

t1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
#### In re DUNHAM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

In the matter of Henry P. Dunham, deceased.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with §10 costs, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 692.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 558 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 120
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 558

                          [Report No. 109-301]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and 
                          for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            November 17 (legislative day, November 16), 2005

    Mr. Putnam, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes. The 
joint resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. House Resolution 542 is laid on the table.
                                                 House Calendar No. 120

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 558

                          [Report No. 109-301]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

            November 17 (legislative day, November 16), 2005

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ernest Brown, Petitioner, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

—'Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (subd. [b], par. 2), for a writ of habeas corpus denied for failure of compliance with article 70 of the CPLR, and more particularly with the provisions of CPLR 7002 (subd. [c], pars. 1, 6), *864and as otherwise insufficient on its face. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Sweeney, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains  summary financial  data  extracted  from  the
Registrant's  audited  consolidated  financial  statements as of and for the
quarter  ended April 27, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                            40
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    995
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     9781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11140
<PP&E>                                         26105
<DEPRECIATION>                                 21072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14303
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       12992
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13666)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16173
<SALES>                                        13466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13466
<CGS>                                          10553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (479)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (718)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (718)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        

</TABLE>
#### Jeanette Holly et al., Respondents, v Ronny Holly, Appellant.

In an action to impress a constructive trust upon certain property, denominated as an action for breach of contract and fraud, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 29, 1980, as, upon granting his motion to dismiss the complaint, granted plaintiffs leave to "replead a more specific amended complaint” and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for an examination of defendant to aid in drafting an amended complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The examination shall proceed at the place designated in the order under review at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiffs, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. The plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient ground to support a valid cause of action against the defendant. Thus, the court did not err in ordering disclosure so that the plaintiffs might frame a proper amended complaint (see *L-Tron Corp. v Davco Systems,*60 AD2d 25; *Matter of Schenley Ind. v Allen,*25 AD2d 742). We have reviewed the defendant’s *674other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
227 So.2d 374

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nick J. SCOTT.

No. 50190.

Nov. 6, 1969.

In re: Nick J. Scott applying for writ of habeas corpus and/or writs of prohibition, mandamus and certiorari.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted so, that an effective appellate review of the Constitutionality of R.S. 14:107 can be had.
225 So.2d 475

#### Victor Rivera AYALA, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50034.

Aug. 8, 1969.

In re: Victor Rivera Ayala applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.