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

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 9, 2011

d0302 

# Order

March 9, 2011

140629 & (83)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140629 COA: 287146 Macomb CC: 2006-005398-FC STEVEN MICHAEL WACLAWSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be revi ewed by this Court.
#### Sarah J. Moran, Appellant, v. Chicago Title and Trust Company, Trustee, and Cochran & McCluer Company, Appellees.

Gen. No. 41,121.

*582opinion filed October 1, 1940;

rehearing denied October 15, 1940.

John A. Bloomingston, for appellant; Hinshaw & Culbertson, for appellees; Oswell G. Treadway of counsel.

Opinion by

Justice Matchett.

“Not to be published in full.’’
Bulletin 1724E-216

Page 29

ATTACHMENT C

DESIGN INFORMATION 

STRUCTURE DESIGNATION

POLE LENGTH

BOTTOM DIAMETER

GROUNDLINE DIAMETER

TOP DIAMETER

WALL THICKNESS -BUTT

WALL THICKNESS - TIP

TOP PRESTRESSING STEEL

 NUMBER OF STRANDS

 SIZE OF STRANDS

BOTTOM PRESTRESSING STEEL

 NUMBER OF STRANDS

 SIZE OF STRAND

DROP LOC. OF STRANDS (FROM BUTT)

POLE TOP DEFLECTION @ FULL TIP LOAD

POLE TOP DEFLECTION @ 40% TIP LOAD

28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

DIAMETER TAPER ( IN/FT)

DESIGN LOADS

MAX. REACTIONS AT GROUNDLINE 

 MOMENT

 SHEAR

 AXIAL

MAX. REACTIONS AT POINT OF FIXITY 

 MOMENT 

 SHEAR

 AXIAL

SUMMARY

WEIGHT OF POLE

TOTAL COST PER POLE

NUMBER OF POLES

TOTAL COSTS

COMMENTS

Attach sheets to provide information TRANSMISSION LINE POLES

required every five foot interval. ATTACHMENT C 

See sections 7.1.b and 7.1.c. BID SUMMARY - DESIGN INFORMATION, WEIGHTS, AND 

of the specifications. PRICE INFORMATION

 (INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED

 WITH THE PROPOSAL)
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2013, by and among WELLSFARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,as General Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer, NCB, FSB, asCo-op Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as TaxAdministrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2013-C12(the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### NIAGARA RADIATOR & BOILER CO., Respondent, v. GOLDSTEIN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Action by the Niagara Radiator & Boiler Company against Abraham J. Goldstein and others.

J. J. Cunningham, of New York City, for appellants.

D. D. Deutsch, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
§ 52.26 Duration of permit. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an early site permit issued under this subpart may be valid for not less than 10, nor more than 20 years from the date of issuance.
( b ) An early site permit continues to be valid beyond the date of expiration in any proceeding on a construction permit application or a combined license application that references the early site permit and is docketed before the date of expiration of the early site permit, or, if a timely application for renewal of the early site permit has been docketed, before the Commission has determined whether to renew the permit.
( c ) An applicant for a construction permit or combined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a site for which an early site permit application has been docketed but not granted.
( d ) Upon issuance of a construction permit or combined license, a referenced early site permit is subsumed, to the extent referenced, into the construction permit or combined license.
[72 FR 49517, Aug. 28, 2007. Redesignated at 72 FR 57447, Oct. 9, 2007; 89 FR 57720, July 16, 2024]
# EUR-Lex - 31983L0651 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31983L0651

**Council Directive 83/651/EEC of 22 December 1983 prolonging the derogation accorded to Ireland relating to the rules governing turnover tax and excise duty applicable in international travel **

*
Official Journal L 370 , 31/12/1983 P. 0062 - 0062 Spanish special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0166 Portuguese special edition Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0166 *

*****

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

of 22 December 1983

prolonging the derogation accorded to Ireland relating to the rules governing turnover tax and excise duty applicable in international travel

(83/651/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 99 and 100 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Council Directive 78/1032/EEC (1) granted Ireland a derogation from Directive 69/169/EEC (2), as last amended by Directive 82/443/EEC (3), in respect of the unit value of goods to be imported with tax exemption;

Whereas the Irish Government has requested that the above derogation be prolonged;

Whereas the tax system at present applied in Ireland does not yet allow full application of the tax exemption granted to travellers coming from other Member States without the risk of serious economic consequences;

Whereas, therefore, Ireland should be authorized to continue to apply exceptional arrangements for a further limited period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The second indent of Article 5 (1) of Directive 78/1032/EEC is hereby replaced by the following:

'- Ireland may, until 30 June 1984, exclude from tax exemption goods whose unit value is in excess of 77 ECU'.

Article 2

Member States other than Ireland shall take the necessary steps to permit the remission of tax, in accordance with the procedures referred to in Article 6 of Directive 69/169/EEC, on goods imported into Ireland which are excluded from exemption.

Article 3

Ireland shall communicate to the Commission details of the measures which it adopts to implement this Directive.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 December 1983.

For the Council

The President

C. VAITSOS

(1) OJ No L 366, 12. 12. 1978, p. 28.

(2) OJ No L 133, 4. 6. 1969, p. 6.

(3) OJ No L 206, 14. 7. 1982, p. 35.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(o)

                                  PAYCHEX, INC.
                     OFFICER PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
                        FOR THE YEAR ENDING MAY 31, 2007

PLAN DESCRIPTION

1.   Participants: Officers of Paychex, Inc.

2.   The maximum incentive for the Chief Executive Officer is 120% of base
     salary plus any bonus awards recommended by the Governance and Compensation
     Committee and approved by the Board of Directors for over-achievement of
     operating objectives. The maximum is 80% of base salary for Senior Vice
     Presidents and 55% for all other Officers.

3.   Performance Criteria: The payment of cash bonus awards to participants
     shall be determined by the Board on a discretionary basis based primarily
     on how year-over-year revenue growth, year-over-year growth in operating
     income excluding stock-based compensation and interest on funds held for
     clients, and improvement in operating income excluding stock-based
     compensation and interest on funds held for clients as a percentage of
     service revenues for the fiscal year compared to the goals that are
     established annually by the Board of Directors.

4.   Payment: Incentive payments to be paid in July 2007 after Board approval.
     Officer must be employed at the fiscal year end to be eligible for any
     bonus.

5.   Changes and Termination: Bonus awards, changes to and termination of the
     Program is at the sole discretion of the Board.
Martin, Michael (OST) DO T ' O S ^ - 9003 ^ - \ \^L \ ( ^ 

From: Susan Mikesic [smikesic@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:25 AM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: flight service 

I wanted to provided feedback on the proposed changes to service at the Altoona-Blair county airport. I 

frequently fly out of this airport and very much like the current carrier and connection to the Dulles Int'l airport. 

I fly all over the country and have found little problem with connecting flights at this airport and have never 

experiences a flight cancellation under the current carrier. In addition, I would not like to fly out of this airport 

on a very small plan because of safety concerns. Too many times you hear of plane crashes on very small 

planes. It would make me consider the State College airport an alternative airport since they have larger 

plans....and I don't like the Philly airport which offers the connecting flights. 

Thank you for allowing the public to offer their feedback on the current scenario. I just hope we maintain the 

current carrier. 

Thank you. 

Susan Mikesic ;"; 

C 3
Exhibit 99.2




                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period
          ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.


Date:  November 18, 2003.


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
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 Quarterly Report of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Scott Wilkerson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (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 Wilkerson
D. Scott Wilkerson
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2003

                                       28
<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of Vincent P., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 525]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about April 22, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of conflicting testimony *(see People v*
      *455
      *Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Malone, JJ.
**Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards**
2007-1454.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Glover.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing by respondent on November 13, 2007, of a motion for reconsideration. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that the motion for reconsideration in this case is denied.
#### § 160.2 Scope.

The regulations in this part apply to all facilities, installations, and real property subject to the jurisdiction or administration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or in its custody which have been posted with a notice of the prohibitions and penalties set forth in this part.

[40 FR 8794, Mar. 3, 1975]
#### § 960.3-1-1 Diversity of geohydrologic settings.

Consideration shall be given to a variety of geohydrologic settings in which sites for the development of repositories may be located. To the extent practicable, sites recommended as candidate sites for characterization shall be located in different geohydrologic settings.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a)

I, Joseph E. Payne, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arcturus Therapeutics Ltd.; and

 

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.

 

 

| Date: April 10, 2019 |   | By:    | /s/ Joseph E. Payne                                                       |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   | Joseph E. Payne                                                                |
|                 |   |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

(principal executive officer) |
§ 835.1002 Facility design and modifications. During the design of new facilities or modification of existing facilities, the following objectives shall be adopted: ( a ) Optimization methods shall be used to assure that occupational exposure is maintained ALARA in developing and justifying facility design and physical controls.
( b ) The design objective for controlling personnel exposure from external sources of radiation in areas of continuous occupational occupancy (2000 hours per year) shall be to maintain exposure levels below an average of 0.5 millirem (5 μSv) per hour and as far below this average as is reasonably achievable. The design objectives for exposure rates for potential exposure to a radiological worker where occupancy differs from the above shall be ALARA and shall not exceed 20 percent of the applicable standards in § 835.202.
( c ) Regarding the control of airborne radioactive material, the design objective shall be, under normal conditions, to avoid releases to the workplace atmosphere and in any situation, to control the inhalation of such material by workers to levels that are ALARA; confinement and ventilation shall normally be used.
( d ) The design or modification of a facility and the selection of materials shall include features that facilitate operations, maintenance, decontamination, and decommissioning.
[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 59686, Nov. 4, 1998; 72 FR 31927, June 8, 2007]
#### ROOT v. PULITZER MAGAZINE CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 29, 1915.)

Action by W. Russell Root, suing, etc., against the Pulitzer Magazine Company, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Boddie-Noell Properties, Inc. Financial Statements as of and for the
nine months ended September 30, 1995 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         718,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  500,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (80,343)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,801,555
<PP&E>                                      98,237,982
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,455,916)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,917,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,254,619
<BONDS>                                     66,774,826
<COMMON>                                        30,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,858,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,917,676
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,500,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,889,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,109,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (88,748)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,031,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,381,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,381,371
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,381,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
#### CANADIAN AGENCY, Limited, v. ASSETS REALIZATION CO. et al.

(No. 6497.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1914.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by the Canadian Agency, Limited, against the Assets Realization Company, impleaded, etc. From an order overruling a demurrer to amended complaint, defendant named- appeals. Affirmed, with leave to withdraw demurrer and to answer.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

George N. Hamlin, of New York City, for appellant.

Samuel Untermyer and Irwin Untermyer, both of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in Canadian Agency, Limited, Respondent, v. Webster et al., Appellants, 150 N. Y. Supp. 758, handed down herewith, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
§ 784.1 Scope and applicability. ( a ) This part states the policy and establishes the procedures, terms and conditions governing waiver of the Government's rights in inventions made under contracts, grants, agreements, understandings or other arrangements with the Department of Energy (DOE).
( b ) This part applies to all inventions conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the course of or under any contract, grant, agreement, understanding, or other arrangement with or for the benefit of DOE (including any subcontract, subgrant, or subagreement), the patent rights disposition of which is governed by section 152 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2182, or section 9 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5908. In funding agreements with nonprofit organizations or small business firms, when title or other rights are reserved to the Government under the authority of 35 U.S.C. 202(a), this part will apply to any waiver of such rights. The patent waiver provisions in this part supersede the patent waiver regulations previously included with patent regulations at 41 CFR part 9-9.100.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 331 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 21, 2005.
    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 bill 
(H.R. 2475) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for intelligence 
and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the 
Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and 
Disability System, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. 
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; 
(2) the further amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
Rules, if offered by Representative Maloney of New York or her designee, which 
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
division of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 981.2 Act.

*Act* means Public Act No. 10, 73d Congress, as amended and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (48 Stat. 31, as amended; 62 Stat. 1247; 63 Stat. 282, 1051; 7 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*).