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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136613 & (20)(21) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136613 

 COA: 280416 

Jackson CC: 04-000793-FC 

GENMONTE RAYMONNE GAITHER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand and motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED. 

d1117 

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. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, EX REL. ROCCO FAVORITO AND CONCETTA FAVORITO, APPLICANTS-PROSECUTORS, v. DALLAS FLANNAGAN, JUDGE OF THE ESSEX COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, AND RUSSELL C. GATES, CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ESSEX COUNTY, AND CLERK OF THE COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS AND SPECIAL SESSIONS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued January 17, 1939

Decided March 2, 1939.

Before Justices Case, Donges and Porter.

*180For the applicants-prosecutors, *J. Victor D’Aloia.*

For the defendants-respondents, *William A. Wachenfeld (Joseph E. Conlon,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

This matter is before us on a rule to show cause why a writ of *certiorari*should not issue to review an order of the respondents after trial of an indictment charging the prosecutors with committing the crime of conspiracy, of which there was a conviction.

The order in question was made upon motion to set aside the verdict and for the entry of one of not guilty, on the contention that the prosecutors were husband and wife; at law, one person and therefore incapable of committing the crime of conspiracy.

We conclude that a writ should not issue for the reason that the trial judge, the respondent, by his order in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial has taken every step necessary for the protection of the rights of the prosecutors to the end that they may take such steps as might he deemed necessary for the proper disposition of the case.

The rule is discharged.
#### § 1313.55 Burden of proof.

At any hearing regarding the suspension of shipments, the Agency shall have the burden of proving that the requirements of this part for such suspension are satisfied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6898]

# Summary:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Words That Changed the World,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, from on or about March 12, 2010, until on or about October 24, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register.**

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 0522-0505.                    

Dated: February 12, 2010.

Maura M. Pally,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-3257 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Editorial Note on Part 1315
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 82 FR 97041, Dec. 30, 2016.

§ 1315.02 Definitions. ( a ) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, any term contained in this part shall have the definition set forth in section 102 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or part 1300 of this chapter.
( b ) The term *net disposal* means, for a stated period, the sum of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section minus the sum of paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section: ( 1 ) The quantity of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine distributed by the registrant to another person.
( 2 ) The quantity of that chemical used by the registrant in the production of (or converted by the registrant into) another chemical or product.
( 3 ) The quantity of that chemical otherwise disposed of by the registrant.
( 4 ) The quantity of that chemical returned to the registrant by any purchaser.
( 5 ) The quantity of that chemical distributed by the registrant to a registered manufacturer of that chemical for purposes other than use in the production of, or conversion into, another chemical or in the manufacture of dosage forms of that chemical.
( c ) Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine include their salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 898 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 898

   Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit certain 
  documents to the House of Representatives relating to Department of 
Homeland Security policies and activities relating to homeland security 
 information produced and disseminated regarding cybersecurity threats 
    posed by the ZTE Corporation, headquartered in Shenzhen, China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2018

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi submitted the following resolution; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to transmit certain 
  documents to the House of Representatives relating to Department of 
Homeland Security policies and activities relating to homeland security 
 information produced and disseminated regarding cybersecurity threats 
    posed by the ZTE Corporation, headquartered in Shenzhen, China.

    Resolved, That not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution, the Secretary of Homeland Security is 
directed to transmit to the House of Representatives, to the extent 
that such homeland security information is in the possession of the 
Secretary, copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or 
other communication of the Department of Homeland Security or any 
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to the 
following:
            (1) Any documentation related to the use of any ZTE 
        Corporation's products by the Department of Homeland Security.
            (2) Any documentation related to cybersecurity threats or 
        vulnerabilities resulting from the use of ZTE Corporation's 
        products by the Department of Homeland Security or the 
        Department's contractors.
            (3) Any documentation related to the cybersecurity threats 
        or vulnerabilities resulting from the use of ZTE Corporation's 
        products by State and local governments and first responders.
            (4) Any documentation related to any alerts or warnings 
        issued by the Department of Homeland Security related to the 
        use of ZTE Corporation's cybersecurity products.
            (5) Any documentation related to cybersecurity threats or 
        vulnerabilities posed by the use of ZTE Corporation products by 
        the Federal Government.
            (6) Any documentation related to cybersecurity threats or 
        vulnerabilities from state actors, including Iran, or terrorist 
        organizations resulting from ZTE Corporation's activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.694 Are electronic records created under this subpart subject to the electronic records requirements of part 11 of this chapter?

Records that are established or maintained to satisfy the requirements of this subpart and that meet the definition of electronic records in § 11.3(b)(6) of this chapter are exempt from the requirements of part 11 of this chapter. Records that satisfy the requirements of this subpart, but that also are required under other applicable statutory provisions or regulations, remain subject to part 11 of this chapter.
#### THE STERN HOLDING COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. PHILIP O’CONNOR ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Submitted February 17, 1939

Decided April 21, 1939.

For the respondent, *Schumann & Schumann.*

For the appellants, *Nicholas S. Schloeder.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— Hone.
#### § 111.5 Do other statutory provisions and regulations apply?

In addition to this part, you must comply with other applicable statutory provisions and regulations under the act related to dietary supplements. For importers of dietary supplements and dietary supplement components, the regulation on foreign supplier verification programs can be found in subpart L of part 1 of this chapter.

[72 FR 34942, June 25, 2007, as amended at 80 FR 74352, Nov. 27, 2015]
Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the reference to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 33-99740, Form S-8, No. 33-40365,
and Form S-8, No. 333-9162) pertaining to the Power Control Technologies
Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, the M & F Worldwide 1997 Stock Option Plan,
and the M & F Worldwide Corp. 2000 Stock Option Plan of M & F Worldwide
Corp. of our report dated February 28, 2002, (except for Note 10, as to
which the date is March 28, 2002) with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of M & F Worldwide Corp. included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                         /s/  Ernst & Young LLP
                                         -----------------------------
                                         Ernst & Young LLP


March 28, 2002
New York, New York
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0272 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0272

**89/272/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Luxembourg (Only the French text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0027 - 0027 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Luxembourg (Only the French text is authentic) (89/272/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 12 September 1988, Luxembourg sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Luxembourg is hereby approved.

Article 2 Luxembourg shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
§ 417.930 Debarring official (USDA supplement to governmentwide definition at 2 CFR 180.930). ( a ) Debarring official means an agency official who is authorized to impose debarment. The debarring official is either: ( 1 ) The agency head; or
( 2 ) An official designated by the agency head.
( b ) The head of an organizational unit within USDA (*e.g.,* Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service), who has been delegated authority in 7 CFR part 2 to carry out a covered transaction, is delegated authority to act as the debarring official in connection with such transaction. This authority to act as a debarring official may not be redelegated below the head of the organizational unit, except that, in the case of the Forest Service, the Chief may redelegate the authority to act as a debarring official to the Deputy Chief for the National Forest System or an Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 TOGETHER WITH
ALL NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,756,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,382,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                   419,212
<INVENTORY>                                  3,411,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,610,800
<PP&E>                                       9,214,658
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,069,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,199,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,097,316
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       10,617,346
<PREFERRED>                                  2,073,144
<COMMON>                                         9,048
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,533,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,199,955
<SALES>                                     19,953,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,953,480
<CGS>                                       18,090,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,090,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,983,010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,242,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (55,043)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,187,058)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,187,058)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)



</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 31993R0761 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31993R0761

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 761/93 of 24 March 1993 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community **

*
Official Journal L 083 , 03/04/1993 P. 0001 - 0024 Finnish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 9 P. 0030 Swedish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 9 P. 0030 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 761/93 of 24 March 1993 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 on the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 of 9 October 1990 on the statistical nomenclature of economic activities in the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Articles 8 (b) and 9 thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 established a nomenclature of economic activities, hereinafter called NACE Rev. 1, to meet the requirement of statistics within the Community;

Whereas it is necessary to amend NACE Rev. 1 to take account of the technological and economic development;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Statistical Programme Committee (NACE) set up by Decision 89/382/EEC (Euratom) (2) and Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

This Regulation incorporates minor amendments to NACE Rev. 1.

Article 2

The following classes of NACE Rev. 1 as annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 shall be deleted and aggregated to other classes: 05.03; 11.11, 11.12, 11.13; 15.99; 17.73, 17.74, 17.75; 60.23; 61.11, 61.12.

Article 3

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3037/90 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20 day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 March 1993.

For the Commission

Henning CHRISTOPHERSEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 293, 24. 10. 1990, p. 1(2) OJ No L 181, 28. 6. 1989, p. 47.

ANNEX

/* Tables: see OJ */

(1)() European Coal and Steel Community.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

versus JOSEPH VITO FAZIO, Defendant-Appellant

************************************************************ No. 97-41135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

versus LEE JAMES JENSEN Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:96-CR-117-2) September 14, 1998

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This case presents a close question regarding the validity of2

an automobile search on an interstate highway. It boils down to a judgment call of whether the arresting officer unreasonably extended an otherwise legal detention. We have considered the briefs, heard oral argument, reviewed the transcripts of the videotaped arrest, and the hearings on the motion to suppress. Ultimately, we are persuaded that the district
court did not err in denying the mot ion to suppress. For essentially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1822

TONY GIVENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District

Judge. (CA-00-96-1)

Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 14, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Givens, Appellant Pro Se. William S. Steele, Deputy Attorney

General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Givens appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court, deny Givens’ motion to expedite the appeal as moot,

and deny his motion for an injunction as moot. See Givens v. West

Virginia, No. CA-00-96-1 (N.D.W. Va. June 16, 2000). 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
#### § 1138.1100 Purpose of SUB Article XI.

SUB Article XI specifies requirements that a recipient must include in any subaward under which it judges that the subrecipient may make lower-tier subawards. It thereby implements OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.331(a) through (c) and other portions of 2 CFR part 200 as they apply to lower-tier subawards.